Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
04.20.2008 9:39 pm

Monday editorial: Adopting Bushonomics

  • Email this
  • Print this

mccain_opt2.jpgThe Democratic candidates for president are working hard to convince voters that a John McCain presidency would be the equivalent of a third term for George W. Bush. Mr. McCain is making their job easier.

The Arizona senator and presumptive Republican nominee already shares the president’s views on the need to stay the course in Iraq. Now, as he begins rolling out his domestic proposals, Mr. McCain seems determined to echo the president there as well. Last week, he unveiled his cure for what ails the American economy: more tax cuts!

Not only does he want to extend the tax cuts Mr. Bush and the Republican Congress enacted in 2001 (parts of which he voted against in the Senate), but he also has some new ones all his own. It’s Bushonomics: The Sequel.

Mr. McCain proposes a summer-long suspension of the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gasoline tax. “The effect will be an immediate economic stimulus,” he said. That’s true; it will stimulate people to keep burning gasoline.

Gasoline prices averaged $3.41 in St. Louis on Friday because oil was at a near-record $114.82 per barrel. Mr. McCain’s gas tax holiday would save customers $3.68 on a 20-gallon fill-up. That’s in the short run. In the long run, it wouldn’t help at all.

The surest way to reduce oil prices is to cut demand; as painful as they are, high gasoline prices encourage conservation. That’s how a free market works, and a traditional economic conservative — as Mr. McCain likes to boast he is — would stay out of the way.

A cut in gasoline taxes would take us in the wrong direction — toward more consumption and even higher oil prices. As a result, we would be sending more American dollars to the oil sheiks, Iranian extremists, African dictators and Latin demagogues who sit on the world’s oil supply.

Plus, the federal gasoline tax funds the Highway Trust Fund, which pays for building and repairing highways, roads and bridges. The trust fund already is $2 billion in the red because Congress authorized more road projects than the fund can afford. A summer-long tax holiday would add $8 billion to $10 billion to the shortfall.

Mr. McCain also proposes a grab-bag of other tax cuts: The corporate income tax rate would fall to 25 percent from 35 percent. He would double the exemption for dependents for individual income taxes. People could choose to file under present income tax law rates or under a new “flatter-tax” program with only two tax rates. Guess which one they’d choose.

He’d also phase out the alternative minimum tax, not a bad idea in and of itself, but he says nothing about how he’d replace the lost revenue.

All of this would cut federal revenue at a time when the Office of Management and Budget reports that the budget was $310 billion in deficit for the first half of the fiscal year. That number could go higher if a recession reduces tax collections.

Mr. McCain promises $100 billion in spending cuts to help offset his tax cuts, but he’s fuzzy about how he’d reach that number. He’d veto all congressional earmarks, which would save $18.3 billion. Much of the rest would come from what he describes as “program review and other budget reforms.”

In the meantime, he’d put a one-year freeze on discretionary spending except for defense and veterans’ benefits. Discretionary programs include education, law enforcement, housing, transportation, national parks, environmental protection and cleanup and countless other important and essential government functions and services.

All candidates, Democrats included, talk more about the nice things they would do for voters than how to finance them. But Mr. McCain has undergone a peculiar transformation as his quest for the White House has advanced.

He opposed most of the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. He said it didn’t make sense to cut taxes during a war, particularly when most of the benefits flowed to the wealthy. He was right then. He’s wrong now.

12 comments

Comments are closed.

Oh, gee! Who couldn’t see this coming?

The mission of the Editorial Board between now and the election can be summed up simply:

McCain = Evil
Obama = GREAT!

And it’s only 188 days (Oct. 26th ) before the Post Editorial Board will be endorsing Obama along with Jay Nixon and every other Democrat on any ticket, anywhere in the country.

It has been spending, not revenue, that has been out of control. It should shock no one here that while you whine about how McCain has not detailed spending cuts to your likely (ie the military) you completely ignore his promise to veto any bill containing earmarks.

With the Bush tax cuts while the tax RATES have gone DOWN tax REVENUE has gone UP… doubled actually. This happens every time you cut tax rates.

None of this could in even the vaguest sense be called ‘news’ as the most basic of economic principles have always escaped your understanding. Elsewhere on this site it was announced today just how poorly this newspaper is doing… profit wise. People aren’t reading the Post… so they are not buying it, so others will not advertise in it. At most any other business, this would mean that a change would be on the way… put out a product that people want.

Not at the Post, where year after year they put out only far left dogma… year, after year, after year.

— tsquare
9:23 am April 21st, 2008

I agree with the Posties that cutting the gas tax is a bad idea, because it will stimulate demand. But that’s where we part company.

First of all, an important detail: You omit a crucial detail when you say that the trust fund “pays for building and repairing highways, roads and bridges.” In fact, the trust fund diverts nearly 3 cents per gallon to pay for mass transit. If this money was appropriated from general revenue instead of being diverted from the highway trust fund, the $2 billion deficit of which you speak would not exist.

As to the idea for allowing people to choose which tax code to file under, you are incorrect to assume that everyone would choose the “flat” one. With computerized tax software, everyone would enter their deductions, and the software would automatically choose the most advantageous method of filing, much as the software automatically chooses between the standard deduction and itemizing today.

You decry sending oil revenue to “oil sheiks, Iranian extremists, African dictators and Latin demagogues.” I agree. But liberals have strongly opposed measures that would reduce what we send to such people: Developing our domestic oil supply in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, making better use of our domestic coal supply, and expanding the use of nuclear power.

What liberals really fear is a President who will eliminate the wasteful earmarks that have become a sacred cow to politicians on both sides of the aisle. They will use any excuse to get people to vote against McCain, from portraying him as a liberal who is driving conservative voters to a 3rd party, to attacking him as a right-winger who would continue the policies of the Bush administration. In fact, he is neither.

Democrats took power in Washington on a promise to restore ethics, withdraw from Iraq, and restore the prosperity of the Clinton years. They have delivered on none of these things, and have simply continued with “business as usual.” President McCain will change that.

— Nick Kasoff
9:24 am April 21st, 2008

All I can say in response to Mr. McCain, a fine person and American who has served his country well, is even some of those are dopes. Can we say “veto-proof majority in Congress”, children, just in case? I’m certainly trying to do my part.

— Bill Haas
10:09 am April 21st, 2008

Decrease spending. End entitlements. What programs has anyone else said they would cut.

Stop robbing my money to give it to others who haven’t worked for it and telling me I will go to jail for tax evasion if I refuse to pay.

— John Deal
11:08 am April 21st, 2008

Why should anyone be surprised by McCain’s useless ideas. They are as outdated as he is. Typical republican strategy - convince people that government doesn’t work and then get elected and set out to prove it by straving programs that are supposed to protect and serve our standard of living. Then blame the poor for draining government resources, while giving the store away to campaign donors, basically large corportation and the PACs that represent their interest.

Yes, this will work to convince middle class uneducated white voters that voting for Obama is just to “risky”.

I talk with some of this types this weekend. It was very scary to here these people condem Obama before they knew anything about his positions. McCain’s a safe bet for these folks. The trusted old white guy that is a hawk with military experience. Obama will not have an easy time running against this level of generational bias.

A McCain win in November will be a sad day for this country. Obama has a vision of unity that this country needs desperately, but has not experienced for a long time - and for some of voting age - have never experienced.

My fingers are crossed.

— MoJo
12:58 pm April 21st, 2008

So what are the government programs Hillary and Barack are going to cut? How much less money are they going to take from me?

— John Deal
1:40 pm April 21st, 2008

Editorial Board:

Is there anybody on the Board so intellectually lame (Other than Eric Mink, of course) that they think corporations actually pay income taxes? Are they not aware that these evil entities fold projected income taxes into the cost of their products, leaving the poor saps who buy them (yes, welfare recipients and other staunch Democrats who otherwise pay no income taxes, have them passed on through their purchases.

— Iconoclastic Sage
1:47 pm April 21st, 2008

As you know, most of the request for funding of programs that deserve scrutiny come from your individual members of congress and senate. If your talking pork and add on spending, you need to look at your representatives. (most of which have been repbulican)

If the Bush governing style has been so effective, then why are we running deficit spending?
Under Bush, government spending has gone up, not down. That didn’t start with the election of democrats.

I agree, the dems in congress have performed terribly. The first thing they should do iis end this war and bring our troops home.
Then end the no bid contracts that Bush & Co.have been responsible for.
We are bankrupting this nation so a few can get rich. We have not served those that have served in this war, we have not made this country safer, and we have reduced our standing in the world.

Your solution is just cut, cut cut. Without thought of what the results will mean for many.
Yes, we get it - you want more for you!
You still need government to build the roads and bridges and make sure they are safe. You still need government oversight of food and drugs - to keep us all safe. You can say you don’t want government spending “your” money, but you and your kind will be the first in line to complain when you and your family are damaged by faulty products or a bridge that collapses on your drive route.

You fail to see the collective benefit of government programs that serve the greater good.
That’s too bad. Just don’t expect me to share your ignorance.

— MoJo
2:10 pm April 21st, 2008

Oh the collective wisdom of the editorial board which contains only one member who has had any formal business education.
the suspension of the gas tax would at least put some money in the pocket of the people and not the govenment. Whats the stimulus program trying to do?
Theres no question the tax code needs substantial overhaul without destroying incentive to workand rewarding the producers.
Whoever is president in 2009 will face a daunting task if a veto free congress decides to raise taxes in the face of a declining economy.
Now if you really want to be stupifying endorse the Barney Frank bailout of the mortgage crisis and be one of the 95% 0f current mortgage holders subsdizing the other 5%.

— jerele
3:38 pm April 21st, 2008

May I politely ask some of you geniuses to look up what Herbert Hoover did to solve his economic crisis. I think some of those guys on the Editorial Board were around then advising him.

— A CENTRIST
10:02 pm April 21st, 2008

Pages: [1] 2 » Show All