Unfortunately, I have further proof to back up my most recent post that we, as voters, tend to have problems keeping our facts straight. A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted earlier this month asked registered voters, "If Obama/McCain were elected president, do you think your federal taxes would go up, down or stay about the same?" 51% of the people questioned said they thought if Obama were elected that their taxes would go up. 51%!
Either, by some statistical miracle, every one of those "51%" makes over $250,000 per year, or we're misinformed--again.
If you don't understand why these "51%" are mistaken; don't worry, no one's blaming you or insulting your intelligence, it's a crazy world out there and politics is pretty boring. But please read my post on the candidates tax policies. Or just read this: if you make less than $250,000 per year, Obama wants to LOWER, not raise, your taxes, and even wants to lower them more than McCain.
10 comments:
While I agree that a lot of us average Americans are mis-informed or under-informed (I will be the first to admit that I am one of them). However, I also feel that part of the information that Americans use is experiance and past history. I am also one that feels if Obama is elected my taxes will go up, even though he promises not to raise taxes on those making under $250,000. Why, you may ask, Obama is part of a larger party that has historicly been known to raise taxes on the middle class. Also, they have been known to increase spending so that there is little option but to increase taxes on all.
I fully recognize that Bush and the Republican controlled congress contributed more than their fair share to spending. Which has left me with the view that all promises the candidates make come with a price tag and it is that price tag that will determine the amount we pay in taxes. The difficulty is fully understanding the cost the programs that are prommised.
Which brings me to my next point, that many average uniformed Americans, like me, do not believe what politicians tell us. We have been lied to so much by both parties, promises have been made and broken that it is hard to believe "CHANGE" really can or will happen.
Greg, thanks for sharing your thoughts and for pointing out a fact I think I've been overlooking--some may be misinformed, but some of us just don't believe politicians anymore. It's a good point. I think many of us tend to share your mistrust for politicians, and rightly so, history doesn't really lead us to believe otherwise. Personally, I too have my doubts about whether either presidential candidate fully intends to, or will even be able to, carry out all that they propose. However, let me share some things that may help regarding Obama's tax plan.
As I wrote in Issue 1.1: Taxes (Again), Obama's voting record seems to line up with his current tax proposal. Factcheck.org says that Obama has "voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That's consistent with what he's said he'd do as president." While I agree that a candidate's voting record isn't necessarily conclusive evidence that he/she will do in office what they say they'll do during the campaign, I think it's definitely good evidence. As such, Obama's voting record seems to back up what he's proposing. As for McCain's tax proposal, it mainly hinges on extending President Bush's tax cuts. Politifact.com actually rates this as a "full flop" for McCain. Take a look at this. Again, I'm not saying that means McCain's lying about his tax plan, but it's something to think about.
I also think your point about balancing spending habits with tax policy is a good one. As far as I know, Obama's three main proposals for paying for his increased spending are 1) ending the war (and associated spending) in Iraq, 2) instituting a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies and 3) closing up "loopholes." Whether that would really work, who knows, I have my doubts. On the other hand, McCain's main proposal to pay for his increased spending is to cut down on other useless spending in the government, specifically "ear mark" or "pork barrel" spending, which I've heard represents only a minor portion of the budget, but that could be political spin (I have no hard evidence to back that up). However, I think it's also worth noting that, according to the Tax Policy Center, McCain's tax policies would cost $7 trillion over 10 years, while Obama's would cost $2.6 trillion over 10 years. They also state that the main drawback of Senator McCain's tax policy is that it "could not be sustained without a radical and unprecedented downsizing of government."
Anyway, back to your point about lying politicians. As I said, I think it's a completely valid point. Still, I think it's more an argument against all politicians rather than one specific candidate. Unless we can argue that McCain is different from most politicians and that he doesn't lie (which I'm not sure we can), I think the same could be said against his proposals that you've said against Obama's. So where does that leave us? Well, that's a fair question, but I think our current system leaves us no choice but to do the best with the candidates we're given...unless you want to run for president (btw I'd TOTALLY be your VP and make all your campaign buttons).
All that aside, I really do appreciate your thoughts. These are simply my thoughts and opinions in return and I completely understand if you disagree. I would, however, love to hear your response to my points if you feel so inclined. Thanks again.
I'd like to ask Greg to clarify his comment "they have been known to increase spending." Are you claiming that Democrats generally increase spending but Republicans generally reduce it?
I'm afraid that doesn't jive with the real numbers. Here are the numbers for the last 40+ years. This shows the inflation adjusted increase in discretionary domestic spending (that's federal spending minus defense, homeland security, and entitlements).
Johnson: 4.1 percent
Nixon/Ford: 5 percent
Carter: 1.6 percent
Reagan: 1.4 percent
Bush I: 3.8 percent
Clinton: 2.1 percent
Bush II: 4.8 percent
It looks to me like Democrats have actually done a better job than Republicans of controlling discretionary spending.
I got this data from here.
What about this?
“Obama has asked for $932-million in earmarks, literally $1-million for every day that he’s been in Congress.”
John McCain has tried to bolster his reformist credentials throughout the campaign by reminding voters that he has long been a crusader against pork barrel spending – federal money for parochial projects in particular states. At the same time, he's derided Democratic nominee Barack Obama for taking no similar stand.
McCain contends that pork spending, which is typically earmarked quietly into massive federal spending bills, forces costs onto every taxpayer that should be borne only by the people who benefit from the projects.
The latest broadside by McCain against Obama came in a speech at a rally in Tampa, Fla., on Sept. 16, 2008.
“I have never asked for a single earmark, pork barrel project for my state of Arizona. Sen. Obama has asked for $932-million dollars in earmarks, literally $1-million for every day that he’s been in Congress.”
We've examined the first part of that sentence, about McCain's own record on pork requests, here. In this item, we'll focus on what he says about Obama, which is nearly identical to what McCain said in a mailer to Florida voters that has been circulating for more than a week.
The mailer says, "Obama has requested $1-million in pork barrel spending for every working day he has been in the Senate."
Obama, on his Web site, has listed every earmark he's requested – but not necessarily received – during that time. It totals $931.3-million, even though the Illinois senator earlier this year said he would eschew any pork for fiscal 2009. The key phrase in McCain's mailer, "for every working day" is missing from the remarks McCain made in his Tampa speech. Obama was elected in 2004 and took office January 3, 2005. Since then, there have been about 930 working days, as they are defined by most people, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, which would mean McCain is on solid ground in the mailer.
Technically, Obama's been "in Congress" for more than 1,350 days, if you count weekends. So how many points do you take off for McCain not saying "every working day"? Not many. We say this claim is Mostly True.
This is from the PolitiFact website...
Sorry Jed. I just reread your comment above and saw the thing about pork-barrel spending. I see that you say it doesn't make up for much of the spending. It just sounds like an awful lot of money...
I am in the same boat as Greg and his feelings about politicians. I don't claim to be fully informed, but it's kind of by my choice in some ways. I am trying to become more informed, but I still stay on the fringes. I hate all of the mudslinging/negative campaigning that seems to be a necessity in every campaign. I think that all politicians are dishonest (Republicans included) and it basically comes down to choosing the lesser of the two evils, in my opinion. I generally lean to the Republican party because of some of my personal feelings on issues that aren't really big in this campaign, but things that matter a lot to me. Oh well.
Was there a time when politics wasn't so negative/dishonest?
Interesting stuff about Obama's requests for earmarks. But let's put his state's earmarks in context.
According to Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), Illinois ranked 31st among the 50 states in pork spending per capita last year. That is, 30 states received more earmark money per capita than Illinois. I dug a little deeper to find the party representation of the top 10 per-capita pork spenders. The top 10 states are represented by 18 Republicans, 19 Democrats, and 1 Independent. It appears to me that pork spending is not a phenomenon unique to any particular party.
In case you're curious, the top 10 per-capita pork spenders are (in order): Alaska, Hawaii, North Dakota, West Virginia, Mississippi, Vermont, South Dakota, New Mexico, Montana, and Arkansas. Which state gets the least per capita? Arizona. And, yes, McCain surely deserves credit for that.
But Jed's right that pork spending is a very small part of the federal budget. According to CAGW, there was $17.2 billion of pork spending in the last fiscal year. Against a federal budget near $3 trillion dollars, that means that pork spending represents less than 1% of federal spending. Eliminating pork spending in its entirety isn't enough to make up even half of the revenue shortfall that would result from McCain's propsed tax cuts.
Alex, I appreciate the info on spending and fully concede the point that Republicans in the past, with the acception of Regan, have out spent the Democrats. I guess I have associated the ideals of fiscal conservatism with the Republican party which is not nescisarily true.
In regards to pork barrel spending, while it may only be 1% of the budget, it is still adding to the defficit. True, stopping pork barrel spending will not solve the deficit but every little bit will help.
I am also of the opinion that before we start adding or expanding programs we need to get the budget under control. I am concerned with the 200 billion a year in new spending that Obama is proposing. Jed I know that you had said that he had stated that one of the ways he would do this is by pulling troops from Iraq. Which I am fully against but that is another issue (perhap to be discussed later... eh). This is an area of concern, because I have also heard that he declined to promise that troops would be out of Iraq by January of 2013 and that he would deploy more troops into Afganistan to finish the job there (a point upon wich I agree with him). This leaves me to wonder how much he will acctually reduce the spending on the war.
I guess my point is that before we increase spending we need to get the budget under control.
On a seperate note I want to thank you for the blog. It has helped to have a semi-unbiased (lets face it there is no such thing as completely un-biased) location to examine the issues, and so far it has been a safe place to dicuss oppions, which I am also grateful. I will admit you have warmed me up to Obama which I appreciate.
What is Obama's healthcare plan going to do to our taxes, realistically?
I, too, am concerned about the size of our budget deficit. It's out of control. Large deficits increase interest rates (as private industry has to compete with the government for capital), which creates a drag on the economy and job growth. And eventually the debt will have to be repaid, meaning we'll have higher taxes in the future.
But as Jed pointed out, the Tax Policy Center concluded that McCain's proposals would add more to the federal deficit ($7 trillion over 10 years) than Obama's would ($2.6 trillion over 10 years).
To Jenny's question about the effects of the health care plans: The costs of the two candidates plans are actually quite similar. The Tax Policy Center says that "the McCain plan would cost about $1.3 trillion over ten years and the Obama plan would cost about $1.6 trillion." Yet there is a big difference in the effectiveness of the two plans. The Tax Policy Center says "Senator Obama’s plan would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by about 18 million in 2009, and 34 million in 2018.... Senator McCain’s plan would have far more modest effects, reducing the number of uninsured by just over 1 million in 2009, rising to a maximum of almost 5 million in 2013, after which the number of uninsured would creep upward because the tax credits grow more slowly than premiums.".
Been reading through these comments, I think it's been a great discussion. Thanks you guys for being willing to contribute.
Jenny, I wanted to respond to a question you posed about whether there was a time when politics wasn't so negative and dishonest. I think it's a great question. The negativity and dishonesty in politics is one of the most frustrating things for me, too. Actually, the more I learn about historical politics and past presidential races, the more I find that the so-called "bickering" that we hate has been around for a long, long time, even back to John Adams' days if you can imagine that. The thing is though, while this can be pretty frustrating, you can also look at all the things that our political system has accomplished throughout history (civil rights, women's rights, the new deal, even back to the constitution and the declaration of independence) even though there has been the same old bickering throughout history. I try to find hope in the fact that, despite all the bickering, our political system has still managed to do some pretty cool things.
To relate that to this race, I've read both you and Greg express your frustrations about the current political system. I absolutely understand your frustrations and feel them myself. Still though, focusing on the good that's been accomplished has so far helped me to put the frustrations aside and engage in the process. I would encourage you guys to keep engaging as well. Hope that helps.
I also have a question for you and Greg (and I promise it's an honestly curious question with no hidden motives). It sounds like you're both leaning toward McCain; are there things about McCain that make you feel better about the potential of our political system? In other words, does McCain represent an answer to the frustrations you've expressed? If so, I'd really love to hear your thoughts, I think it could really help me understand the other side of this campaign (which I honestly want to do).
Thanks again for contributing.
Post a Comment