Mr. Vague Generalities just can’t help himself

February 20, 2008

In retrospect, it was incredibly helpful for John McCain to argue last week that one of his biggest points of contention with Barack Obama is his alleged aversion to “specifics.” I’ve heard of leading with your chin, but this is ridiculous.

Last week, we talked about a couple of glaring instances in which McCain seemed wholly incapable of going beyond vague generalities, but ThinkProgress found another gem for the list. The subject: the federal budget.

Now, McCain has always fancied himself something of a deficit hawk, so it didn’t come as too big a surprise to hear the senator argue the other day that he has a “goal” of balancing the budget during his first term. Given that Bush has run the biggest deficits in American history, and the new president will inherit a $400 billion deficit next year, that sounds like a fairly good goal.

So, how’s McCain going to get there? There are three options: 1) raise taxes; 2) cut spending; or 3) some combination therein. McCain has ruled out the first and third options, ruling out any tax increases for any reason.

This is even dumber than it might appear at first glance.

It would be discouraging enough if McCain seriously planned to find $400 billion in federal spending to slash — not bloody likely — but as TP explained, McCain actually wants to add to Bush’s tax cuts, making it harder to reach his “goal.”

On his campaign website, McCain trumpets a laundry list of tax cuts:

* Permanently repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
* Cut the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent
* Provide all individuals with a $2,500 [health care] tax credit ($5,000 for families)
* Expanded health savings accounts
* Allow first-year deduction, or “expensing”, of equipment and technology investments.
* Establish permanent tax credit equal to 10 Percent of wages spent on R&D.

So, hundreds of billions of dollars in additional tax cuts, on top of a deficit that already runs hundreds of billions of dollars. By his own admission, McCain is pretty clueless on matters of economics, but maybe one of his adoring fans in the media could press him on why this budget plan is utter nonsense.

Of course, that’s not likely. It’s far more likely that a NYT columnist will use this as an example of why McCain should be praised for being inept and foolish when it comes to ridiculous campaign promises.

i know you’ve got the flu bug, and of course any reason to criticize bush is a good one, but to be fair, if we’re going to talk about the size of the deficit, we need to do so on the basis of deficit as a percentage of gdp, not in absolute (inflated) dollars.

under that discipline, bush’s record is terrible, but not the worst ever, a title reserved for reagan.

  • Howard – perhaps we should take into account the budget surplus Bush inherited, and add in the current Social Security surplus that is always hidden in these numbers. Add these in and there’s a pretty good case for the “worst” tag for Commander Codpiece.
    Besides, when any apparent disrespect is shown for St. Reagan, any wingnut’s hearing clicks off.

  • Getting out of our current economic quagmire will require some brave, and politically difficult, steps. By wishing on the tax fairy yet again, McCain is proving he doesn’t have the stomach to do what is necessary. That’s not leadership, that’s pandering to the Republican party’s base of have and have mores.

    McCain is already showing how lilly-livered he is. Were he to become president, he wouldn’t have the courage to do anything that needed doing. You can already see that every move McCain makes is not a reasoned stand that a smart leader would take to solve a problem, but a political calculation necessary for a weak person to not anger the limited support he has.

  • I think I have the same flu. Wait a minute…Didn’t McCain vote against a ban on torture just the other day? The man whose moral credibility rests on his own personal experience as a torture victim and his supposed ability to stand on principle, voted against a ban on waterboarding. That’s a flip-flop, is it not? To paraphrase Walter Wobchack “Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules?! Mark it Zero!!” Wait a minute… is it ok for a fictional Vietnam Vet to totally Zing a real one? Not really- but man did they ever do it to Kerry last cycle. With giant Styrofoam flip-flops and everything. Whatever. McCain’s gonna retire on this. President Obama’s going to take care of John, and the rest of veterans. Presidents’ names have always ended in a consonant or an e. It will be a new thing to have a president whose name ends in a. Totally unprecedented.

  • Does this mean he plans to let increase the estate tax?

    I didn’t see it in his list of to-dos.

    Good for you, Senator!

    May I suggest lowering the ceiling of non-taxable inheritance and increasing the rate of that which is taxable if you really mean to balance the budget.

    (Ah, if only I believed he’d do anything this sensible.)

  • Has anyone else noticed that McCain has adopted Bush’s puffed-up, macho man routine? Play hard-ass and pretend to stand for something like your feet are in concrete, regardless of whether what you’re standing for makes any sense. There’ll always be new concrete to take a stand in tomorrow.

    Anyone who is so desperate to win the presidency as this guy is should be automatically disqualified.

  • I thought his answer to all our problems was to just say “stop the bullshit”. If it works for the Iraqis it’ll certainly work for the economy.

  • “* Establish permanent tax credit equal to 10 Percent of wages spent on R&D.”

    Read subsidized out-sourcing.

  • “Mr. Vague Generalities” doesn’t have any choice in the matter. If he goes down the path of subterfuge and camouflage, he’ll turn “our side of the fence” (along with the Indies and the growing number of moderate GOPers who’ll never vote for him) into a bunch of rabid, half-starved hyenas. If he goes down the path of reality-based solutions, he’ll be devoured by his own kind and the philosophical kindred of Rush Limburger. And if he tries his fence-straddling, flip-flop routine, he’ll be the world’s biggest political “ayce” buffet.

    Pass the Soylent Green….

  • buzzmon, yes, even discounting the social security suprlus, on a percentage of gdp basis, reagan remains worse than bush.

    on a total presidency basis, of course, bush is incomparable: there has been no one since world war ii close to as bad a president.

    it’s just when the bill of particulars is laid out on why bush’s presidency was so bad, “the worst deficits ever” don’t belong it.

  • Well… According to Bush’s and McCain’s theory, tax cuts pay for themselves, because they stimulate economy*. So, if we continue to cut taxes, eventually they’ll not just pay for themselves, but produce surpluses, sufficient to tow us out of the deficit… no?

    *Not that our economy *needs* stimulating. It’s doing splendidly, pulled by the Great Engine of defense spending (according to Clueless George).

  • I know you’re being tongue in cheek libra.

    There is a curve. If you tax income 100% eventually (like, two weeks) no one will work anymore, and revenues will go down to Zero.

    If you tax income 0% the economy will grow, but revenues will remain Zero, because you’re not taking any of it.

    Somewhere between 0% and 100% you get the most revenue and the most economic growth and thus increases in future revenue.

    Clinton raised the top rate to 39.6% and the economy grew and revenue grew.

    Boy George II reduced the top rate to 36% and while the economy as edged up a little, the revenue from that tax rate has never recovered.

    Clearly, we can go back to 39.6%.

  • Lance @13,

    Exactly right. Clearly Clinton’s tax increase on the top rate did not have the dramatic negative impact on the economy as teh right wing predicted.

    Let Bush’s tax cuts expire, reform AMT and declare it a “tax cut”. its all in the PR, if you ask me.

  • Anyone who is so desperate to win the presidency as this guy is should be automatically disqualified.

    Word.

  • Lance, that’s the Laffer Curve in action. It’s quite interesting that the ‘supply side’, ‘trickle down’ folks love to talk about the Laffer Curve, but only on the downhill side. They say reducing taxes will increase revenue….but ignore what happens when you pass the peak revenue point on the curve. To be fair, I think last year had the highest tax revenue ever, but that has been explained as the logical, natural result of an economic recovery. It would be an exercise in partial differential equations to figure out what the revenue would look like at the pre-Bush tax rates when compared to the current rates, but clearly, the fiscal management and the talking points made by the Bush team have not panned out.

    Additionally, the GOP uses a horrible sleight of hand (surprise, surprise) when they only talk about the *budget* deficit; The budget deficit is meaningless since it excludes, by definition, off-budget supplemental appropriations like, oh, the hundreds of billions requested each year for the Iraq debacle. In a tip of the hat to this, the Bush team included a few bucks in the budget for Iraq operations, but only to the end of January ’09 when GWB gets out of Dodge. He’s going to leave even more red ink in the form of more necessary supplementals on the lap of the incoming President. It’s a slick, but non unexpected booby trap from GWB.

    As I always say, the more you see about GWB, the less there is to like about him and his practices; it’s a far cry from the not-so-rotten candidate he professed to be in 2000.

    • Comments are closed.