I absolutely agree with the McCain supporters that say increasing taxes is a horrible idea. I agree that increasing the income tax on people (and many businesses/S-corporations) earning more than $250k/year is a bad idea and will hurt many businesses at a time when many are already hurting.
Increasing taxation is wrong. Increasing taxes on corporations hurts growth and the cost is ultimately paid by the consumer. I agree with all of this. I, and I believe many liberals (for lack of a better word), do not disagree with the republican party on this issue.
My disagreement with the republican party’s financial policy isn’t that I disagree with lowering taxes. Of course I want lower taxes. But the question is - what government programs are you willing to cut to do it?
To illustrate my point lets look at three aspects of our financial reality:
1. Our national debt is now over $10 Trillion dollars.
2. The interest expense on the National Debt is the third largest expense in the federal budget - and growing. We’ve paid $451,154,049,951 in interest in 2008 to date.
3. Our top general fund expense is Defense* (including Iraq.)
The reason I disagree with the republican financial policy is because it reminds me of a drunken gambler or a teenager with a credit card. They believe risking more money that they don’t have, will somehow payoff their previous losses.
Despite the fact that we have no money and are paying huge amounts of interest on our debt, McCain’s plan calls for cutting taxes even further. McCain’s plan reduces taxes by $4.2 trillion from 2009-2018. (To be fair, Obama’s plan calls for a $2.9 trillion reduction. Also unwise.)
“TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion.”
I disagree with leveraging additional debt without ANY plan for an equal number of cuts in government spending or increased revenue. I find it incredibly irresponsible for republican’s (or any individual) to assume additional debt without a plan for balancing the budget.
Defense Spending: Why isn’t Iraq discussed as a partial factor in the financial crisis? As we’ve discussed, the United States doesn’t have any money. So what’s our mistake-in-Iraq’s portion of the national debt? Since 2003 we have spent $845 billion in Iraq and the overall cost is expected to reach $2-4Trillion. McCain and the republicans (and many democrats) continually increase the funding for a war of aggression that was based on lies. Spending money that they do not have. Mortgaging our future. All the while lowering taxes. How is this responsible?
I currently find myself to be a libertarian that believes in small government and low taxation. McCain’s tax plan should be right up my alley. But it is not because I value sound monetary policy and a balanced budget first and foremost.
*I have generalized this statement a bit. It is true that the bulk of our taxes go to social programs but Social Security is reported as a separate account/fund than the federal budget. I certainly agree that these programs have serious cost excesses and need to be dealt with swiftly. However, these cost cuts need to be handled in the context reforming and cutting costs of each program based on results. The answer is not blindly cutting taxes, increasing debt and disregarding the budgetary constraints as the republican’s seem to believe.
I encourage you to share your feelings but don’t call me a democrat 
2 responses so far ↓
1 Justin! // Oct 13, 2008 at 12:11 pm
About 9 years ago, Donald Trump supported a onetime tax on the super-rich of 14.25% to completely eliminate the national debt, prediction an economic boom by the country ridding itself of the debt (Just a year later, in 2000, he said to prepare for an economic crash larger than 1929). As you mentioned last week, Warren Buffet also feels he is undertaxed.
Then again, they are the incredibly super-mega wealthy and may be out of touch with the needs of those that are simply just super wealthy.
I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have as good of a grasp on the economy as I should, but I do think the wealthy could certainly be taxed more than they are now.
Would relieving our country’s debt have a positive impact? Probably, although I have no idea how much - I’m no economist. But, like the bailout, it seems like it would be just like pouring more water into a leaking bathtub instead of sealing the cracks.
Even greater than the source of the income is the issue of where it is going. I think one place we certainly agree is that we’ve tragically overspent on our “freedom fighting” escapades. I could never associate with the Libertarian party because I believe in socialized medicine, and more subsidized education and environmental programs as an investment into our future.
All the money we’ve poured into Iraq and Afghanistan has probably had a negative effect on our national security. It was and continues to be a gross misappropriation of funds.
I have confidence that Obama will do a much better job acknowledging the existence of the deficit and prioritizing the budget more wisely, if elected.
In your opinion, is the recent rise of the Libertarian Party the efforts of economic Republicans getting out from under the specter of the moralistic Christian right and the war-hungry masters of the bloated defense contract republicans of the past decade?
2 Michael // Oct 21, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Excellent post, I couldn’t agree with you more. The national debt is simply too large and all of these bailouts are just adding to it, at some point the government will become insolvent.
As far as the rise of the Libertarian party I do know several traditional republicans (myself included) that are moving that way. It doesn’t hurt that they’re the only party that talks about cutting spending.
Leave a Comment