July 9, 2008
McCain's Doublespeak
The New Republic: Ariz. Senator Has Contradictory Ambitions
-
Photo
Sen. John McCain is talking out of both sides of his mouth, writes The New Republic. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson)
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Convention Changes and Economic Plans
Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama are spending this week discussing their economic plans to Americans. Vaughn Ververs, senior political editor at cbsnews.com, offers some insight on recent political news.
-
Video
Kerry: 'McCain Flip-Flops'
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) defends his endorsement of Barack Obama and says that John McCain has flip-flopped his political stances. McCain supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) offers rebuttal.
-
Video
Obama, McCain Offer Tax Plans
As rising gas and food prices continue to hurt the wallets of Americans nationwide, both presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain have offered solutions. Michelle Miller reports.
-
Timeline
McCain's Quest
Mileposts in the Arizona senator's race for the GOP nomination and the presidency.
-
Interactive
U.S. Taxes
Find out more about where your dollars go, and take a quiz on filing with the IRS.
John McCain's fantastical pledge on Monday to balance the budget by 2013 through massive tax cuts and unidentified budget reductions deserved the bad reviews it received. But the most unfortunate element of his incoherent promise is that it's representative of his policy agenda these days. While the McCain campaign is trying to paint Barack Obama as a flip-flopper, the Arizona Republican is making diametrically opposed policy promises to different audiences at the same time. The contradictions are often in the details, but their obscurity is evidence of the campaign's cynicism.
Take McCain's ambitious health care plan. It would give every family a $5,000 health insurance tax credit at a cost of $3.6 trillion, by his campaign’s own account. Despite its size, McCain aides have said, repeatedly, that McCain's health care proposal has no net cost. That's because it would tax workers' health benefits, which the Joint Committee on Taxation agrees will raise $3.6 trillion (in its analysis of the Bush proposal that served as the model for McCain's plan). Taxing health benefits solves the budget problem, but it creates another: It raises taxes on tens of millions of middle-class families, according to a Center for American Progress Action Fund report one of us co-authored.
Rather than face up to the difficult choice between higher deficits and more taxes, McCain advisors are attempting to have the best of both worlds. Jonathan Cohn noted "rumors" that McCain was actually subjecting health benefits to income taxes but not to payroll taxes -- a policy that would help middle-class families but explode the deficit. And the McCain campaign told Daily Tax Report that "health benefits would only be subject to income taxes, not payroll taxes."
This makes no sense. The campaign's own $3.6 trillion figure is based on both income and payroll taxes. To say the plan cuts taxes by $3.6 trillion, has no budget cost, and doesn't raise payroll taxes is sort of like saying that Cindy McCain's passion fruit mousse recipe has no fat, burns calories, and eliminates male pattern baldness: It's impossible.
You see the same kind of doublespeak with tax policy. In June, the respected Tax Policy Center tailed up the cost of McCain's plans. The Tax Policy Center's report was based in part on conversations with McCain aides. It has since been cited in dozens of media reports. Yet the report's clarifications essentially rewrite the tax policies that McCain has publicly espoused.
For example, McCain has publicly promised to "abolish” and "phase out” the Alternative Minimum Tax, the separate tax system that falls on about 4 million high-income taxpayers each year. His web site still says he will "permanently repeal” it.
But the Center, apparently based on the details provided by McCain aides, concluded that the Arizona senator "does not plan to repeal the individual AMT" but only to exempt more families from it. As David Leonhardt of The New York Times has pointed out, this will take more upper-income families off the AMT, but it is simply not a repeal.
That's not all. McCain proposes an enormous expansion of corporations' ability to write off their purchases -- an expansion so large that a campaign position paper calls a $1.2 trillion tax cut suggested in a Bush Treasury report "modest" by comparison. But the Center says that McCain will limit the proposal to a narrow class of investments and sunset the proposal after five years -- even though McCain himself regularly says on the stump that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be akin to a tax increase. With the Center's limitations, the proposal becomes practically a footnote, not the game-changer McCain has suggested, costing just $18 billion over a decade.
The Center also reported that McCain would repeal a tax break for goods manufactured in the United States. Such a proposal would meet intense opposition from manufacturers in many swing states. The McCain campaign hasn't mentioned it anywhere.
All three differences suggest that McCain would be more judicious in cutting taxes than he has pledged. That is, of course, exactly the message that the McCain campaign wanted to send the Center's sober budget experts. But the campaign continues to describe its tax cuts in sweeping terms to voters.
It's the same pattern on other issues as well. In March, McCain said to The Wall Street Journal that he supports "private savings accounts ... along the lines President Bush proposed," letting workers divert some of their Social Security contributions into accounts. But McCain's website says he supports more personal accounts only as a "supplement" to Social Security.
This is not a small difference. It was the crux of the massive fight over Social Security privatization three years ago. McCain told the Journal he would fix the website. Four months later, he hasn't.
On education, McCain education advisor Lisa Graham Keegan in June said that McCain believes the No Child Left Behind Act adequately funded. But a week later, McCain policy director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and his senior advisor Carly Fiorina told a group of reporters they would "fully fund" the law. This expensive pledge -- about $15 billion a year -- puts McCain in the odd position of simultaneously criticizing Bush for spending too much and then wanting more spending on a signature Bush initiative.
What is happening here? One explanation could be a disorganized campaign. Maybe McCain's aides never bothered to hammer down answers to these questions, forcing them to make up responses haphazardly, resulting in missteps. But it sells short Holtz-Eakin -- a former Congressional Budget Office director and a respected expert on taxes and health care -- to presume that he failed to consider some of the central questions of domestic policy.
The larger problem is the contradictory ambitions of the McCain campaign. The candidate wants to stand for "leadership, courage, and choices." Yet he also want to be both a supply-sider and a deficit-hawk. He wants to transform our health care system and Social Security without adding any money to either and without anybody getting hurt. He wants to be a tightwad on spending who doesn't cut any spending anybody cares about. These are impossible policies to explain, because the policies themselves are impossible. No wonder he ends up talking out of both sides of his mouth.
By Robert Gordon and James Kvaal
If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion and analysis.
|
If you like this article, go to www.tnr.com, which breaks down today's top stories and offers nearly 100 years of news, opinion, and criticism. |
Video and Galleries from Opinion
-
Video
Rooney: Eat More Fruit!
-
Video
A Day To Remember
-
Video
Jackson Memorial In Context
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 51 CommentsObama wants to have it both ways on abortion, Iraq, immigration and border control, taxes, health care reform, and whether his daughters can be interviewed. LOL
He has already said enough to anger the career public servants and elected officials in Washington, to the point that they will ignore him for four years just like they did Carter.
Obama .... talks .... PRETTY.
However, the mess he would leave behind after four years of naive proposals, incompetence, and inaction won''t be.
he is bush junior, he is and always will be a war monger,
he supported everything bush has done, the traitor leiberman is in his corner,
why not just keep bush at least he is smarter than mcbush
you are part of the problem in america if you do not see GW Bush in McBushCain, and did you even bother to read this article,
we have had enough, it has reached emergency levels,
McBush has turned america into a third world country
it is time for a change
Posted by paris1969 at 04:06 PM : Jul 09, 2008
He didn''t even show up.
Will his presidency be like that too?
again
He knows Obama is right on just about every issue but because Kooc fringe hard right base, he''s stuck and left flip flopping on everything from delivering us from the Tyrrany of oil to I wanna stay in Iraq for 100 years to I can have out by my 1st term.
Will he be pragmatic like he was as a POW or will he go back to the fringe hard right base of the Republican party?
in.......................
It really doesn''t make sense for the GOP to sacrifice somebody that wasn''t already about to retire anyway, or spend too much money and effort on what is sure to be a losing election anyway.
I don''t think anybody should really expect very much from McCain. His only real function is to not make it TOO damned easy for the Dems, just to keep them honest.
Why hasn''t main stream media had any articles about the 61 yr old woman in Denver that was arrested and charged with trespassing for having a sign that said McCain = Bush. Only Denver news sources and blogs are covering the story. McCain campaigned lied saying they did not know anything about it.
Videos
http://origin.denverpost.com/technology/ci_9812206
http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/community/post/al/Cqyh
McCain will not support the "Community Choice Act" for the disabled. McCain did not provide a reason for not supporting the Act. People in wheelchairs left the Town Hall after McCain said he would not support it.
http://washingtonindependent.com/view/mccain-faces-mixed
Vietnam veteran, who challenged McCain%u2019s record of supporting health care for veterans. It was followed by testy exchange, during which McCain fell back on his endorsements from veteran groups:"
Boos erupted from the crowd, and some audience members shouted at each other across the room. Eventually, McCain stepped in, saying, %u201CIf we all start yelling then it doesn%u2019t really get very enjoyable.%u201D
He then addressed the questioner, raising his voice a bit as he seemed clearly perturbed:"
The problem is that McCain was trying to present himself as an outsider of the Republican party. And He WAS. Now he wants to act like an insider to get the Radical repubs on board.
Mr Plainspeaking is no longer plainspeaking. The fact that he hired the same man (Black) who Swiftboated him tells you exactly what McCain is up to. You can talk the talk but if you don''t walk the talk, you lie.
Posted by paris1969 at 04:06 PM : Jul 09, 2008
He didn''''t even show up.
Will his presidency be like that too?
Posted by IOWEIGN at 05:00 PM : Jul 09, 2008
Yeah, like Bush.
they are the same, pimps to the oil lords,
****** to the lobbyists, what do you need to know,
if you support bush, mcbush, you are not a rteal american, you are a fascist nazi
...As would any senior suffering from early Alzheimer''s.
Why is ANYONE surprised by his BS?
Bush is a total ***, but they want to replace him with McSame, who appears to be in the first stage of Altzheimer''s on top of being totally out of touch with reality.
McCain has some SERIOUS mental problems - he obviously did not receive adequate counseling after being a POW. He is mentally unstable - he does not see the world as it is - he is hallucinating.
I''m not surprised that his campaign staff can''t even keep his website updated - they''re probably all dinosaurs like him. They are applying a 20th century typewriter mentality to the reality of 21st century IT technology. Go ahead, ask McSame about blogging or something - ask him when was the last time he looked at his own website. He''s got one foot in the grave - I wouldn''t be surprised if he didn''t know how to turn on a computer much less get anything out of it.
I''m totally scared that there are still too many idiots who will vote for him anyway.
I meant to say that Bushit is a R*E*T*A*R*D
I wonder if the Senator is still searching for the missing WMDs.
All these problems started since a DEMOCRAT run Congress was elected. The truth is that the President has little influence over the economy, other than to propose programs and legislation to the Congress.
Reagan''s success in his economic impact (lowered unemployment by half, the prime by 75%, inflation by 90%, and mortgate rates by 2/3rds) was that he was able to get Congress to enact his programs.
This Congress has done nothing but the ''cake icing'' rebate stimulus, and things are fraying a bit at the edges as they sit on their hands and blame an office that has no power to unilaterally act on any domestic programs.
The White House has had a widely approved energy package before the Democrat run Congres for more than EIGHTEEN MONTHS now. Where is it? In a Democrat controlled committee, cooling its heels. They are hoping for a Democrat to be elected to the White House so they can lay it at his feet and take credit for the whole thing.
While the Democrats play politics, Americans suffer.
However, they don''t CARE.
this is a mess created by greed driven conservative
republicons, there is only so much money to go around and the republicon are keeping it for their wealthy friends
Are you de-ranged? The dems have had congress for two years. Bush and his cohorts had blown the money long before that. Oil was $28.00 per barrel until Bush started helping his oil buddies.
You are correct about one thing. Since 2006, the dems should have put bush and cheney in chains and carted them off to trial as war criminals. I surely don''t know what that is off the table.
What does THAT say about controlling WH policies??
No matter how one feels about Obama, he has a message, he stays on focus, his campaign runs like a well oil machine and there are no temper tantrums.
This election is over. It was over when fossil John was picked as the rep nominee and Obama beat out Hillary. If the rep''s had picked a different nominee, it might have been more of a race, but the only question is how big a blowout will it be.
Couldn''t agree with you more. McCain is such a pathetic little figure. I am quite amazed that this is the best the GOP could cough up this time.
And to call McCain''s campaign anemic is an understatement. I can only imagine what he''ll look like when he has to stand side-by-side during the upcoming debates. The difference will be dramatic.
When Barack double-speaks, it''s to hold the positions of two different constituencies. Like he''s committed to getting out of Iraq within 16 months AND in the exact same breath he''s also warning that he''s not at all committed to getting out of Iraq within 16 months, which appeals to the anti-war crowd (''far left'') AND the ''get out with dignity crowd'' (''centrist''). Most of our minds don''t work that way - mine doesn''t - so the danger is in our tendency to hear what we want to hear and discount the contradiction.
With McCain, what''s being called ''doublespeak'' such as his claim that he can cut spending without raising taxes AND balance the budget isn''t intended to appeal to two separate groups - he''s just making a pie-in-the-sky overoptimistic overpromise. Everybody wishes for that ideal, but when confronted with the nitty gritty reality knows that''s not really achievable. I think in Magoo''s case, he''s really just not spending a lot of time in the weeds cross-checking A with B.
Barack''s the more slippery ''double-talker'' because how do you really debunk his double-talk? How do you guard yourself against falling into the trap of only hearing what you want to hear when he limits his double-talk to ones that can''t be debunked with reality? With Magoo all you do is cite facts.
So, I guess in conclusion yeah they''re both politicking, but wow I sure see Barack as a WAY more dangerous political animal . . .
I am impressed with this article from the Neo Con CBS''
You two better be careful you speak the truth and truth in the media is not exceptionable.Thanks for your straight talk views....
My current favorite is how he is going to balance the budget by winning the war in Iraq in 2013. Huh?????
First of all, how can any predict the outcome of a war 4 YEARS in advance? There are any number of scenarios that could happen that would scuddle that plan between now and then. What other plans are there if that doesn''t work out?
Second, what is going to happen between now and then??
I mean, he is so off base and illogical and unrealistic that anyone listening to him has NOTHING to grasp or build on.
As I said, Obama may not be liked, but at least he has realistic ideas and offers details of his plans.
Fossil John just throws out ideas that make no sense, don''t stand up to scrunity and offer no hope.
This election is over.
Fossil John just throws out ideas that make no sense, don''t stand up to scrunity"---
Posted by clestes
Yeah, that basically sums up the choices doesn''t it? Wow, I don''t know . . .
The reason attacking Iran is NOT going to happen is the hardline resistence from the Pentagon, the Sec of Defense dept and the State dept.
Robt Gates, the Sec of Defense, Mike Muellen the chairman of the Joint chiefs and Condi Rice, Sec of State are ALL ADAMANTLY OPPOSED to attacking Iran.
Why? Because they see nothing positive and a lot of serious negatives to come of it.
First off, there is no reason for it. The latest NIE says Iran has no nuclear weapon program since 2003. They have never backed away from that claim.
Second, the already rocky economy would take a nose dive to depths never before seen. With oil at better than $200 a barrel and gas over $7.00 a gallon, businesses would go belly up and unemployment would skirocket. Food and heating would be prohibitedly expensive and there could easily be riots in the streets by people out of work, out of money and desperate. It would the 1930''s shanty towns all over again.
Third, the cost in US troop lives would be high. It is easeily conceivable that the Shiite majority in power would turn on the US troops and they would have to fight their way out of Baghdad taking heavy casualities. That does not even count the cost in civilians lives or the destruction of what little infrastructure build up there has been.
Just the THOUGHT of a McCain presidency is enough to make sensible people have nightmares.
This is the last gasp of the old ***. Time for him to retire and live off Cindy''s money and be with his kids and grandkids, and great grandkids.
read my last post and then decide.
Which would put the blockage of the Gulf of Hormuz back into play, wouldn''t it?
I mean, I don''t see Barack saying Iran being neighborly towards Iraq is just the price that needs to be paid to meet the fulfillment of getting the troops out. Like isn''t that what most of us anti-war folk would hope for? And wouldn''t we be likely to point out that like geez, Iran''s there at Iraq''s invitation?
This is not Democracy! No More of the OLD POLITICS !
Everybody (Bush/Chaney/McCain) are all crying we need to drill for more oil in the US...
More wells and no new refineries - very shortsighted rhetoric with no concept of the real solution. Wells will take a long time but we need to do them as well as refineries but we need something now - what''s the plan raid the American pocketbooks and retire???
I am with T. Boone the man with a plan and knowledge
Vince Duran
www.DuranAds.com
Posted by vranger
Posted by ainttaken
what a load of crapp
the Iraq war hasnt affected the economy? You are even more senile than McLame.
Yes the Iraq War is affecting the economy but its not bring our economy down. The credit crunch and the mortgage crisis is whats slowing down this economy not the war. If you would listen to the news and read the paper you would know that.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 51 Comments