Steve Forbes: McCain Isn't Bush

Political Players: Former GOP Presidential Candidate, McCain Economic Adviser On Taxes, Energy And The Budget

(CBS)  Political Players is a weekly conversation with the leaders, consultants, and activists who shape American politics. This week, as Barack Obama and John McCain duked it out on the economy, CBS News' Brian Goldsmith talked with former GOP presidential candidate and current McCain adviser Steve Forbes about taxes, energy, and President Bush.

CBSNews.com: The Politico reported this week that a number of the 300 economists that Senator McCain claims support his economic plans say they have significant reservations about it, that many were unfamiliar with or downright opposed to key parts of his plan. What’s your response to that?

Steve Forbes: Well, I've not seen that piece.

CBSNews.com: Senator McCain told Katie Couric this week that he pledged to balance the budget by the end of his first term in 2013. Do you think that’s possible?

Steve Forbes: I think his plan is the most realistic plan to achieve a balance--or a far better balance--that is out there, by recognizing the importance of reducing the burden of taxation, among other things. That is the key to getting the economy back on track again. His energy programs, I think, would substantially reduce the price of oil, which would remove a huge burden on the American economy and the American consumer.

So the way you get a balanced budget is one, greater revenue growth. And he's got the best plan for it. And two, restraint of spending. Just slowing the growth of spending. And on that, he has a record, going back a number of years in the Senate, of being a hawk on reducing spending.

CBSNews.com: But why should voters trust Republican leadership on this issue when the current Republican president inherited a surplus and is leaving his successor with perhaps the worst deficit in American history?

Steve Forbes: We're talking about John McCain, not the Republican Party or the current incumbent in the White House. And we're looking to the future, not what George Bush has done in the past. Bush is not running for reelection. John McCain is running for election. And John McCain has vigorously opposed many of the spending measures of the Bush administration. His tax proposals are far more comprehensive than what the Bush administration has proposed.

And on the energy front, he has got a far more vigorous approach than either Senator Obama, the Congressional Democrats, or the current incumbent in the White House. So in terms of what voters are voting for--the programs advocated by Senator McCain, and the programs advocated by Senator Obama--I think Senator McCain's are hugely more beneficial for the economy and for our security.

CBSNews.com: What do you say to economists who argue that it's actually the Bush tax cuts that have contributed more to the shortfall than increased spending?

Steve Forbes: The tax cuts enabled the American economy to go from stagnation, which started under Bill Clinton in 2000, the high tech bubble burst in 2000. And the losses from high tech still vastly exceed what we've lost on the subprime crisis.

And the tax cuts of 2003 took the U.S. economy from a subpar one percent growth rate to three to four percent real growth, and between 2003 and 2007, the expansion of the American economy, just the growth alone, exceeded the entire size of the Chinese economy. We grew China in four years. Now, obviously, their growth rates are higher, but they're coming off of a much smaller base. So the tax cuts worked. What didn't work was the reckless spending by both the White House and the Congress.

CBSNews.com: You’ve talked about John McCain's energy proposals. Do you support his plan for a gas tax holiday?

Steve Forbes: The gas tax holiday plan, as part of a comprehensive package, makes sense. Give people some temporary relief. But have on track a massive program to increase the output of energy in the United States. Clearly, there are tens of billions of barrels of oil offshore that should be explored and produced. Every other country is doing it. Brazil, just a few months ago, discovered a field off its shores that has upwards of 33 billion barrels of oil.

There's lots of gas out there. And Senator McCain's nuclear program of 45 new plants in this country over the next 20 years, would go a long ways to increasing our production of electricity without relying on oil.

The technology on the nuclear power is there. Japan has done it, France has done it. So it's just a matter of will in this country to do the same thing. And by the way, both the offshore exploration and production, and the nuclear program, would create nearly a million new jobs, high skilled, high paid jobs, in both of those sectors.

CBSNews.com: But even Senator McCain's supporters say that the benefits of new output, from either additional oil drilling or from nuclear plants would be years into the future. Do you think there's more that can be done, besides what Senator McCain described as the psychological benefit of announcing that we're going to do this?

Steve Forbes: Well, I've heard the same arguments three or four years ago. If we'd gone offshore three or four or five years ago, we'd be having production from that.

And in terms of the future, if you're OPEC, or you're another oil-producing nation, and you see the United States has serious programs to increase its output of oil and natural gas production, not only offshore, but also all the shale deposits that we have in the western part of the United States, and we have a serious nuclear program, such as the French and the Japanese have done for years, what are you going to do? You're going to ramp up your production, because you're going to want to sell while the selling's good. That brings the price down.

So the impact would be immediate. And in terms of increased oil and gas production, that could start to come online in three or four years. The longer we wait, the longer it is in the future.

CBSNews.com: Do you disagree with Senator McCain on ANWR?

Steve Forbes: On ANWR, I do. But I agree with him on offshore and nuclear. And that's where most of the new energy resources are. And that doesn't preclude doing other things. For example, Boone Pickens has a very bold program for massive wind farms in Texas and elsewhere. So you do all of the above: wind, offshore, onshore, nuclear, and we can make substantial progress.

CBSNews.com: Democrats are drawing a contrast between the McCain corporate tax cuts and the Obama plan, which is a bigger middle class tax cut. How do you defend that?

Steve Forbes: Senator Obama has not proposed any specifics on his so-called middle class tax cut. And when he's been in the Senate, even though he's only been there three years, he's voted for tax increases of one sort or another 94 times. He also voted for a Senate budget resolution, for example, that would have increased taxes on individual tax filers making as little as $32,000 a year. So his actions belie his rhetoric.

And if he allows the 2003 tax cuts to expire, that's gonna take a family making $40,000 or $50,000 a year, and increase their tax burden one or two thousand dollars. So his tax cut would barely make up for what the tax is going to go up in two years.

On the business side, the United States today has the second highest business tax burden in the developed world. And that makes us less competitive with countries such as Ireland, Britain and France, which have all reduced their corporate tax rates.

CBSNews.com: Senator McCain claims to have opposed the Bush tax cuts simply because of the failure to cut spending. But there are many statements that have been chronicled of McCain criticizing the Bush tax cuts because he thought they disproportionately benefited the wealthy. Hasn’t he changed his position on this?

Steve Forbes: Well, because of his criticisms and those of others, the tax cuts that passed--partially in 2001, but mostly in 2003--substantially increased exemptions for children, with that $1,000 refundable credit. Getting rid of the marriage penalty, which greatly increased the benefits to those in the middle income brackets.

So the criticism had the effect of making that tax bill even better. And in terms of his own tax record, McCain has never supported a tax increase.

[rowdywicca]

Posted by aj4321 at 06:09 PM : Jul 13, 2008

Obama doesn''t know the TRUTH!!

And he has not clue what his stupid tax plan is going to do to middle class America!

The man is a buffoon being pulled around by the strings of his financial backers!

[baldwin2008]

America, TAKE YOUR COUNTRY BACK!
www.constitutionparty.org
CHUCK BALDWIN 2008!
Do your research and WRITE THE VOTE IN!!!
Obama and McCain will both pull us further into this HOLE and away from our spirit and our roots.
THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS

[aj4321-2009]

standlee5: "Just slowing the growth of spending. And on that, he has a record, going back a number of years in the Senate, of being a hawk on reducing spending."

------------------
Here are some information:

In Fiscal Year 2006, the U. S. Government spent $406 Billion of your money on interest payments.

Federal Debt at $9 Trillion and Counting.

Non-security portion of the discretionary budget is $456 billion.

Even if you get rid of all discretionary programs, you cannot plug a hole of $9 trillion with $456 billion. McCain''s idea of lowering the deficit by cutting growth of spending is pure hogwash.

[aj4321-2009]

Posted by standlee5: He''''s abold faced liar when he says he''''s not going to raise taxes. He''''s going to hammer us all with capital gains taxes right when the boomers are ready to retire. The largest transference of wealth ever and instead of it going to our kids it''''ll be going to Obama''''s giant, grow govt. leaps and bounds, programs.
-----------------------------

At least Obama is being honest. He is going to raise taxes on anyone earning more than $250,000. I don''t see how republicans can expect to lower the deficit. McCain wants to borrow even more to pay for his 100 year war and other programs. Republicans are robbing our children and grand-children.

When was the last time a republican administration lowered the size of government? The republican voters fall for this false promise, again and again!

[standlee5]

"Just slowing the growth of spending. And on that, he has a record, going back a number of years in the Senate, of being a hawk on reducing spending. "


whew. good lord, FINALLY somebody telling the TRUTH

[standlee5]

"And when he''s been in the Senate, even though he''s only been there three years, he''s voted for tax increases of one sort or another 94 times."

Right on, Mr. Forbes. He''s been in the Senate all of 143 days and voted to increase taxes 94 times. He''s abold faced liar when he says he''s not going to raise taxes. He''s going to hammer us all with capital gains taxes right when the boomers are ready to retire. The largest transference of wealth ever and instead of it going to our kids it''ll be going to Obama''s giant, grow govt. leaps and bounds, programs

[rowdywicca]

Good for Steve Forbes...somebody needed to bring out the truth on the Obama''s freaking tax plan! It''s a total no brainer that it''s not going to do a *** bit of good to ANYBODY! It''s just rhetoric in an election year!

Obama has NO clue what the hell he''s doing!

[aj4321-2009]

Posted by Ariel133: Obama presidency would be a disaster for the nation.

-----------------
Do you know whose presidency "IS" a disaster for the nation? Bush! A third term for Bush through McBush is not going to make us prosper.

[vincan-2009]

Where is all the worry and concern for the men and women who have lost their lives and are being maimed day after day in this unholy war in Iraq? The aborted babies will return to God. Each woman is responsible for her decision and her body. Everyone should worry about their family, not what others do to survive. It is so pathetic that instead of caring about the living there are so many that will vote for the buffoon who says he will get rid of abortion, but it won''t happen. Has Bush done anything to do away with abortion? No. So dream on, it is too good of a ploy for republicans to use on you poor pitiful fools who continually vote against your own interests.

[vincan-2009]

John McCain''s opponent is a constitutional scholar who is smart, honest, and will bring integrity back to the government. McCain is old, has lost his way, is now is a pawn of neocon greedy war mongers. Never in our country''s history has so much depended on having the right man as president. Senator Obama is that man. We can''t afford to have McCain or the old corrupt republicans he surrounds himself with to continue to bring down America. We need President Obama to undo the harmful policies and actions, and help America to prosper again.

[ariel133]

McCain''''s opponent is not Generic D but rather a left-wing extremist with no experience, horrible, tried-and-proven-failure ideas and terrible judgment in friends, supporters and staff. That ought to frighten moderates and conservatives alike when they contemplate giving him the car keys. McCain''''s path to victory, then, is in collecting the people who like him, the people who respect him, and the people who can force themselves to tolerate him, and persuading them that an Obama presidency would be a disaster for the nation.

But McCain can only do that consistently and effectively if he, himself, believes that Obama would be a disaster for the nation.

Does He?

[boosterprez1]

Okay, that''''ll work.

Now can anybody demonstrate how Obama differs from Jimmy Carter?

Posted by ragnar30066

___________________

First I''d need to know: Do you want the Obama of the primaries or the Obama of the General Election - they are vastly different....

Teehee....

[ragnar30066]

Okay, that''ll work.

Now can anybody demonstrate how Obama differs from Jimmy Carter?

[deacon20081]

T Boone Pickens is attempting to destroy the WATER Resources in an Aquifer so he can sell it! The Wind Farms are just a smoke screen.

[boosterprez1]

pjones501 writes:

*In this time of crisis, we need the Best.

We need Experience. We need Hillary and Bill.
__________________

The only reason Bill even became President in 1992 was because Ross Perot stepped into the election, taking votes from George Bush 1....I don''t think this is highlighted often enough...

The "good times" of the ''90''s happened despite Clinton''s time in office, not because of it...Clinton rode the high-tech bubble until it burst in 2000...again, Clinton had nothing to do with the creation, or dissolution, of that.

These are different times....you can''t recreate the ''90''s no matter who is in office...the world has changed immensely in the last two decades....

Accept it and move on...McCain is nothing like Bush...never was, never will be...though I''ll admit that Obama IS starting to sound a lot like Bush lately, isn''t he?

[pjones501]

*In this time of crisis, we need the Best.

We need Experience. We need Hillary and Bill.

Under the Clinton administration, the average income went from $43,000 to $49,000 a year. The budget was balanced and inflation, including oil and gas prices, were kept in check.

We can still have Hillary.

It IS up to US. All we have to do is let it be known that Hillary backers are NOT going to vote for Obama under any condition. Thats all it takes. If we don''t play thier game with them, there is no game and the candidate that most Democrats cast their votes for in the Primary will be the next President of the United States.
Write in Hillary''s name on the November ballot. Call your local voting place,
(on your registration card) and find out if you have to do anything special to receive a write in ballot. In some states you have to be registered as an
Independent. Do this before October 1st.

REMEMBER!! Obama is just the "presumptive" Democratic Candidate. The Super

Delegates, who can change their votes right up until the last minute, can

still make Hillary Clinton the Democratic Candidate at the Democratic National

Convention in August.

LET THEM KNOW YOU WANT HILLARY!!!!!

[bfjones666]

pjones501, drop the BS and stop listening to lies. Obama said that immigrants should absolutely learn to speak English and that he wished more Americans learned foreign languages as part of their basic education. Why? Because EVERYTHING that adds to our educational base makes us better able to do more. He was ashamed that HE didn''t speak Spanish.

[chrisl45]

We were attacked on 9/11 by extreme radical Islamists. If we do not protect ourselves we will be hit again and again. John McCain ran against Bush in 2000. It was a campaign where John was accused of fathering a black child out of wedlock. John is not like Bush. They come from different backgrounds and have different beliefs. Before we attacked Iraq, there was a lot of turmoil in the world caused by extremists. Today, the turmoil has decreased.

[likeitis5050]

I have/"had" a friend who is a Republican. I asked him how in the world can he support McCain (knowing he is pro-war, pro-Bush etc.) He laughed at me and said simply, "It''''s not my problem that the poor are poor or that the poor fight the war..my goal is to hang on to my money and McCain like Bush will make certain that happens". The friend in question is worth millions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by CitizenUSA

With a little more effort and less whining you could be a great sci-fi writer...just kidding...you''d su.ck at that, too. Nice try, under achiever. Stop blaming any one who does better than you...it''s your own fault you lack ambition and drive...your parasitic DNA gives you away. Get off you azz and work for what you think you deserve instead of expecting tax payers to support you. Or hold your breath and hope Obama saves your sorry azz.

[indyvet66]

Actually, McCain is 95% Bush - Senator McCain voted with President Bush 95% of the time during the past seven years.

If you like President Bush and think he has done a good job, then John McCain is your man.

If you''re one of many Americans who thinks that the war in Iraq was a mistake or believe that the Republicans have run the economy into the ground and think that the chaos George Bush and John McCain unleashed in our foreign affairs has something to do with the price of gas at the pump... then you have Bush%u2019s partner John McCain to thank.

No one worked harder than McCain to get Bush elected then reelected.

And no one promoted and advocated for the Iraq war than John McCain. John McCain%u2019s original sin was supporting Bush and going to war in the first place.

Again, if you like the results of the past 8 years, then vote for McCain, because you will get more of the same for the next 8 years.

Ronald Reagan once asked "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"

That is a great question now - are you better off now than you were in 2000?

If not, then I respectfully suggest you vote for Barack Obama in 2008.