I have been told repeatedly that McCain is a flip-flopper and hypocrite because he was against the Bush tax cuts, but now he wants to keep them. I tell them the obvious truth that the effects of removing a tax cut are not the same as having not enacted it in the first place, and this is why McCain opposes taxes increasing from whatever the current level is.
The Democrats don't accept it. They apparently believe that if you're against the taxes at a certain level, you must always be against them at that level, no matter what route is taken to get there; that the changes between different levels of taxation are immaterial, and that only the absolute value of tax rates matters.
Recently a woman was shot in Seattle, and the bullet lodged in her leg. Presumably, she opposed being shot (I hope there's no contention on this point). But now that the bullet is in her leg, she is likely going to leave it there, because her doctors say it would do more damage to remove the bullet.
I guess that makes her a flip-flopper and hypocrite, according to the Democrats.
Or maybe they just have trouble understanding that different things are, in fact, often different.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at June 11, 2008 08:34 PM | Email ThisThanks.
I don't care if people DISAGREE with his positions, that's not the point. The point is whether his position has changed. Quite clearly, it HAS NOT CHANGED. His position was no taxes going higher than they are now. If he favored letting the tax cuts expire, THAT would be the flip-flop.
It's just that one could argue that if McCain didn't vote for the Bush tax cuts to begin with, it's kind of awkward for him to be out there now proclaiming he wants the cuts to remain in place. Happily, he does not want them to expire. But unfortunately, his original "no" vote did not set him up well for his current situation. I think most people can see that.
If I had been the senator from AZ I sure as heck would have voted for those tax cuts, and frankly it was a huge mistake to have a sunset clause for them in that legislation. Lets the dems off way too easy at this point. They do nothing--taxes go up. "Temporary" income tax cuts are for cowards.
Posted by: Michele on June 11, 2008 09:53 PMShe sure has flip flopped, as now she is for every new tax and fee hike that her party can dream up to shove down our throats.
What's she going to run on in 2008, how much more she wants to heist from us in 2009?
Posted by: gs on June 11, 2008 09:55 PMIt's just that one could argue that if McCain didn't vote for the Bush tax cuts to begin with, it's kind of awkward for him to be out there now proclaiming he wants the cuts to remain in place.
So it is awkward for the woman to proclaim she wants to leave the bullet in her leg?
A. McCain has not voted for a tax increase throughout his career.
B. I assume by Tax increase, you don't account for closing of loopholes for businesses, even though they do increase taxes for businesses.
C. I assume that not voting for a tax cut is not equal breaking his not voting for tax increase pledge.
D. I assume that we are only talking about income taxes here and not other taxes or tariffs.
I just want to get the ground rules down, so as not to have you call me a liar.
Cheers,
TC
8. Yes, it is a bit awkward to leave a bullet in your leg, but if it makes sense to leave it there then that's what you do. That's what you're trying to argue with McCain, and there's nothing wrong with that, per se.
And that is the first half of my point. And it is not merely what I am trying to argue, it's fact. He is against taxes going up, from whatever they currently are, no matter how they got there.
I'm simply trying to point out that most people won't do nearly that deep of an analysis about McCain's current position and that on the surface
Yes, and that is the other half of my point: the Democrats are lying. They know a lot of people won't look at it deeply, and take advantage of it by lying, and saying McCain flip-flopped, or is a hypocrite.
Hence this post.
He continues to want both. More tax cuts, and a smaller government. Good for him. He never had a problem with the tax cuts in and of themselves.
That kind of dishonesty from the dems is shameful and sickening.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on June 11, 2008 10:45 PMAs much as I don't like it, McCain spoke against the merits of the tax cut on its own, without respect to the increased spending. Now, he may have been amenable to it if spending had been decreased, but that wasn't what was on the table.
I did not imply McCain was against tax cuts, but he WAS against THOSE tax cut plans, and it was not simply because of a lack of spending cuts.
And Michele, yes, the bullet-in-the leg analogy is obviously coming from the perspective of people who think the tax cut was the wrong thing, as McCain said. I would not characterize it as such coming from my own perspective.
Michelle @ 8:
"if it makes sense to leave it there then that's what you do."
I agree with Michelle@8. McCain at least has the integrity to realize he was incorrect in the first place. How many politicians would have stayed consistent to save face?.....
Answer: lots of them.
You people say you want a new kind of politician, but when one emerges, he's castigated for not acting like the politician you've grown accustomed to. Wise up folks.
The facts are this. First, in 2000 when McCain was running against Bush, both had tax cut proposals put forth, along with Forbes (I believe). One of McCain's main arguments against Bush's plan put forth at that time was that it favored the rich too much. Then, in 2001 and 2003, when Bush put forth slightly modified versions of his original campaign proposal as part of Stimulus packages, McCain again used as one of his arguments that the Bush Tax cuts favored the rich. If this was one of McCain's rationale against the tax cuts in the first place, why is it missing now? Why, now does McCain want to not only keep the tax cuts he argued against, but further cut taxes for the wealthy. The bulk of his tax proposals do not target middle class, but the wealthy. To me, this is dropping a belief about tax policy that he held in 2000-2003. This is what Obama is hitting him on. Obama is not hitting him on the fact that he never voted for a tax increase. It is the flop on why tax cuts for the weathly were bad in 2000-2003, but now are good.
You state in Post 14, that you will be honest. Okay, where is your honest when people here lie about Obama. Do you defend Obama, like you do McCain? How about when McCain "lies" (using your definition of the phrase) about Obama's plan? Do you defend Obama and call McCain out? Or, do you take the "Clintonian" aspect of depends on the definition of "is" is?
For example, McCain's team has stated in the last week that Obama is proposing the largest tax increase ever. Their rationale for the argument is Obama letting the Bush tax cuts expire. It is based soley on the dollar amount of the cuts. Forgo for a moment the question whether letting tax cuts expire is a tax increase, there basis for argument is not correct. The dollars in question need to be normalized to a common factor. One also needs to normalize taxpayer base (number of taxpayers). Most economists rate a tax increase or decrease against the GDP. Based on this measure, letting the tax cuts expire would be the 5th largest change in the last 50 years. Further, this argument also doesn't factor in the fact that Obama is only for letting the top rates go back, not all the rates. Additionally, Obama is for middle class tax cuts and these are not factored into the argument. Independant analysis of both campaigns economic proposals state that neither campaign's numbers add up and that McCain's proposals will increase the national debt greater than Obama's. So, Pudge, where is your honesty on this topic?
Posted by: tc on June 12, 2008 07:31 AMTax Policy Center - 2008 Presidential Candidates Tax Proposals
http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/election_issues_matrix.cfm
As for tax cuts, I, too, was skeptical the cuts would work. In my case, I started spending more money on capital and increased my output (i.e. taxes paid). McCain sees that too, but also wants to decrease spending which is not what the DalaiBama want. (Ed note: Libertarians and McCain haters-don't throw your vote away).
Posted by: swatter on June 12, 2008 08:00 AMYou were fixated in your "ground rules" on terms I wasn't using.
You do seem overly focused on McCain not raising taxes and that he has been consistent in this philosopy.
Um.
Uh.
The whole point is whether McCain has changed his position on taxes. If this has been his position all along -- it has -- then he has not now changed his position. And he hasn't. Q.E.D.
I don't see how it is possible for me to be "overly focused" on THE POINT. Maybe that is the problem we're having here: I care about the proving or disproving the point, and you care about ... something else?
I will concede the point on whether McCain has ever voted for tax increase. I don't have the time to go back and research all his votes. It doesn't pertain to the point I have been trying to make. Maybe I have been unclear with regards to taxes. I will try to restate.
I don't care if you restate. Unless you can show that McCain was in favor of making taxes higher than whatever the current level is, at any point, then you can't win the argument that McCain has changed. I am not going to even address your argument, because it is COMPLETELY beside the point, and your attempt to "restate" is really an attempt to deceive.
You state in Post 14, that you will be honest. Okay, where is your honest when people here lie about Obama. Do you defend Obama, like you do McCain?
Yes, often. For example, I have spent considerable time debunking the myths about Obama's supposed radical Muslim beliefs and background, as well as myths about his never putting his hand over his heart. Just recently I did a whole post attacking a hit job about Obama's state senate race in 1996. And in a recent discussion here I attacked Obama's "#1 liberal" rating as ridiculous. Granted, I don't spend as much time defending Obama as others; there's only so much time in the day.
How about when McCain "lies" (using your definition of the phrase) about Obama's plan? Do you defend Obama and call McCain out?
What lies? I can't think of any offhand.
I DID attack McCain (though I can't recall if it ever made it onto this site) over his (true) statement about Hamas supporting Obama, as I think no American should take into consideration, either pro or con, what Hamas thinks about our election.
For example, McCain's team has stated in the last week that Obama is proposing the largest tax increase ever.
Yes, I don't know the numbers yet, so I am reserving judgment. It's quite possible that I'll comment on it in the future.
Forgo for a moment the question whether letting tax cuts expire is a tax increase, there basis for argument is not correct. The dollars in question need to be normalized to a common factor.
Yes, for your sake, it would be better to not discuss whether taxes going up is, or isn't, a tax increase. Seriously.
Anyway, are you saying that it is only the greatest dollar amount in nominal, not real, dollars? Again, I haven't looked at the numbers. If this is the case, then yes, I'd say it is normally deceptive to talk about issues like this in terms of nominal dollars without qualifying it, as most people assume real dollars (I think).
One also needs to normalize taxpayer base (number of taxpayers). Most economists rate a tax increase or decrease against the GDP.
I'll disagree there. Just like we normally assume real dollars unless otherwise stated, I think we also normally assume absolute values, not values compared to GDP or population, unless otherwise stated. It's true that tax increases are often weighed against GDP, but this is almost always done explicitly, not implicitly. So while you could say that it is unfair to not compare it to GDP, I wouldn't call that deceptive.
Further, this argument also doesn't factor in the fact that Obama is only for letting the top rates go back, not all the rates.
Again, I do not know if this is true or not (in McCain's reasoning, as I've not looked at it). If it is true, however, then it is still not deceptive, as McCain was talking about the dollar amounts.
Additionally, Obama is for middle class tax cuts and these are not factored into the argument.
Again, I don't know if this is true.
Independant analysis of both campaigns economic proposals state that neither campaign's numbers add up and that McCain's proposals will increase the national debt greater than Obama's.
Yes, but that analysis doesn't include how much spending McCain will cut. Maybe it tries to, but it underestimates it.
So, Pudge, where is your honesty on this topic?
Please, let us not redefine "honesty." Just because I've not spoken on a topic doesn't mean I am being "dishonest." That's just stupid.
You can expect me to comment more on this topic in the future, and to be completely honest about it.
Note that I attacked Bush over his tax cuts at the time, too: I called him out on the fact that he said his second tax cut proposal in 2003 included a tax cut for all income-tax-paying Americans, when it in fact left out people already in the 10 percent bracket, who stayed in that bracket, and had no child dependents, no spouse, and no investment income. Those people did get a tax break from Bush's first tax cut proposal, but not his second, but Bush claimed it specifically for the 2003 cuts: My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax.
I was criticizing this in 2003. I have a track record of honesty on these things.
You made a comment about the analysis doesn't include McCain spending cuts. To be fair, it also doesn't factor in Obama's statement that if the money is available through cuts in other programs, revenues, etc., that he will delay his spending proposals (paygo). McCain hasn't been specific about spending cuts. In 2000, when he was running his policy was spending cuts after the fact if revenues didn't match. This to me seems risky. I would much prefer spending cuts to be proposed along with the tax cuts. I am tired of both sides promising that their revenue or spending cuts will come. Enough with the "wishes", either the money is available for the cuts or it is not. New programs shouldn't be implemented without the funds to run the programs, and tax cuts should not be made without demonstrating that they won't have a negative impact on revenue. Since I don't buy the supply side argument/dream that revenues will just automatically increase with any tax cut, I prefer to see matching program cuts.
Posted by: tc on June 12, 2008 08:16 AMYes, and I am sure I could verify most of it, given the time.
McCain hasn't been specific about spending cuts.
Dino proved that you don't need to be. He wasn't specific, and he made cuts.
In 2000, when he was running his policy was spending cuts after the fact if revenues didn't match. This to me seems risky.
It has to work that way. He wasn't saying you don't balance the budget, he was saying you may need to make additional adjustments later. If you are implying McCain said he wouldn't make cuts up front, no, that's not true.
tax cuts should not be made without demonstrating that they won't have a negative impact on revenue
I assume you meant impact on the deficit, not revenue, since cutting with corresponding spending is what you advocate later. But that's wrong anyway: tax cuts should be made if the government is taking too much money.
I would prefer to see corresponding spending cuts too, but that is less important than cutting the taxes in the first place. The first obligation of government is to the rights of the citizens. Taking too much of my money -- however that is defined, which can be in many ways -- violates my rights. Tax cuts in the face of taxes that are too high is more important than making sure spending is cut as well.
That said, it is irresponsible to NOT cut spending when taxes are cut.
I don't buy the supply side argument/dream that revenues will just automatically increase with any tax cut
Not every time, but almost. History shows it clearly. However, it is a short-term gain. And it goes the other way too: taxes going higher than current levels will almost always SLOW the economy in the short term, which is why even if you are in favor of higher tax rates for "the wealthy," right now is a stupid time to do it.
We can only hope that if Obama does become President, that the economy is in better shape at the time, or he could really plunge us deep into the Misery Index.
2008: He now wants those tax cuts to be permanent which is the correct decision. His position has changed only when new information has come forward (i.e., the success of the tax cuts in the first place).
Read the original post again.
Being against it the tax cut being enacted IS NOT THE SAME as being against making them permanent.
John McCain's base isn't angry at him....
The Democrats love him!
Posted by: FireWolf on June 13, 2008 06:35 PM