Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
McCain Picks Up GOP Predecessors' Sham Promises
It's a performance requirement. Miss America contestants dream of world peace. Republican presidential candidates promise balanced budgets on top of enormous tax cuts. No one takes the Miss America contestants seriously. The same can't be said of the candidates. They promise the impossible. They deliver worse. Still, they get elected.
John McCain is running a fantastically dull campaign. His ideas have the grayed optimism of 1950s television commercials pegged to the fear factor of 1980s cold war hysterics. He's a 20th-century museum piece, as good a fit in the Senate's gilded chumminess as it is an anachronism beyond it (which is just what makes Barack Obama such a lousy fit in the Senate). But McCain's got this much going for him -- a promise to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, to pile on gargantuan tax cuts and tax credits of his own, rebuild the military while it wages its usual quota of wars and still balance the budget by the end of his first term.
Sham promises like that have been getting Republicans elected going back 30 years. In 1980, Ronald Reagan promised the biggest tax cut in the nation's history, a doubling of the military budget, and an end to the budget deficit, at the time a manageable $73 billion. That's what the first George Bush was calling "voodoo economics" before Reagan snagged him as his vice president. A few years of voodoo later, the deficit had tripled, the United States had become a debtor nation for the first time, and the national debt, below $1 trillion before Reagan took office, more than doubled before he left it. The first Bush, who lied his way to office with a "no new taxes" pledge he broke, had only one term to worsen the damage, and did. But it was his son who'd make Reagan seem like an amateur con. Banking on the surpluses he inherited from the Clinton cleanup years, Bush went turbo-Reagan. He promised tax cuts enough to dwarf the 1981 package, promised to pay down the national debt -- $5.7 trillion when he took office -- and still have money left over to fix Medicare and Social Security.
"The big lesson of this year's campaign," columnist Paul Krugman wrote the day before the 2000 election, "is that a candidate can get away with saying things that are demonstrably untrue, as long as the untruths involve big numbers." Proof is in the consequences. Reckless fiscal policy leading to the current meltdown aside, we got historic budget deficits and a national debt that'll hit $10 trillion when Bush leaves office. The interest alone on that debt in 2007 was $237 billion -- more than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, $47 billion more than the entire cost of Medicaid (the federal health insurance for the poor), $147 billion more than the entire cost of Veterans Affairs.
Krugman also noted in that 2000 column that Bush's seductive lies would be "a lesson that we can be sure politicians will take to heart." Cue John McCain. Here's what he's proposing: Make the Bush tax cuts permanent and eliminate (not fix) the Alternative Minimum Tax altogether. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensure that the richest Americans, who often find ways to evade taxes, paid their share. It's been creeping down the income table and nullifying parts of the Bush tax cuts on upper-middle-class incomes. The combined cost of making the Bush tax cuts permanent and eliminating the AMT: $490 billion a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office and the Center for American Progress.
McCain also wants to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent (even though this decade saw record-breaking corporate profits year after year). Slash an additional $100 billion in Treasury revenue. He also wants to make it easier for corporations to deduct expenses. Cost: $75 billion. So far, that's $665 billion in lost revenue per year, most of it benefiting corporations and the richest 5 percent to 10 percent of Americans. He also wants to double the exemption for children and dependents from $3,500 to $7,000, which would swell lost revenue past the $750 billion mark.
How would he make it all up? His campaign foresees $20 billion a year in new revenue from economic growth, $30 billion a year from closing corporate tax loopholes and $160 billion a year in undefined spending cuts. Even assuming those imaginary figures to be true, by his campaign's own accounting, McCain -- that fiscally prudent GOP "maverick" -- proposes a budget blueprint that begins with an annual deficit of a half-trillion dollars. And we're supposed to take the guy seriously as a presidential candidate?
It worked for Reagan. It worked for both Bushes. It just might work for McCain, who's making sure that his Fast-Talk Express always stays many delusions ahead of what his economic adviser calls "a nation of whiners."
Tristam is a News-Journal editorial writer. Reach him at ptristam@att.net or through his personal Web site at www.pierretristam.com.
© 2008 News-Journal Corporation



21 Comments so far
Show AllIt's looking more and more like Obama will lose. One of the networks yesterday cited a poll that had he and McCain virtually even. Everything that the Obama campaign does that can possibly be construed as controversial is widely reported while McCain's utterances are mostly given a pass. This looks likely to continue despite Obama being a better candidate and better public speaker. McCain seems to have complete freedom to change positions and hedge his bets without inspiring much reportage.
Maybe after the conventions when the debates happen McCain's chances of losing will increase ... maybe.
Arbeit macht frei
und
Steuersenkungen für die Reichen.
the big supply-side lie...........
shame on the corporate media for perpetuating this "ponzi" game. many trusted economists have asked to put the record straight on our major news outlets and have been denied.
bought and paid for judges (appointed by a bought and paid for congress) have determined that there is a "divine right" of capital, ruling money as speech and corporations as persons.
screw them........they are the real enemies of state, not the rag-tag bunch of extremists who attacked us 7 years past.
Just seems to validate my belief that those that really have the reins of contrtol over the governments of the world aren't going to let a little 4 year election get in their way. If a candidate as bumbling and incoherent as McCain " wins", do any of you need more proof that elections here are a huge fraud. Thank the corpstream media. your complicit congress, bought and paid for judges, for this sham of a democractic republic.
We the people haven't really had a say for a good long time now. How else do you explain this insideous slide into third world status and creeping fascism?
Tune out, turn off the TV, stop supporting them by mindless consumption. They will feed you and your kids only poisonous substances for your body and your mind. Reach out to your family, friends and neighbors and offer a helping hand however you can. The power elite cannot maintain power over us if we turn our backs on them. They just want you to keep believing in the fraud behind the curtain pulling the strings. They are terrified of us because they need us as much as they despise us. We are the props they use for their hideous sense of overblown self importance. Laugh in their faces and get busy loving those all around you.
Perhaps the best rationale for Obama's recent slide to the "right" is that he's been put on notice that if he wants to play with the big boys, he'd best knuckle under. Maybe he's not dancing fast enough or ably enough to satisfy the "white guys" who run the world. Maybe they sadistically enjoy watching him self distrcut trying to please them. The reality at the top of the pile is ugly.
We at the bottom of the composte heap need to transform ourselves into rich loam for emerging Light and LOve on Gaia. Let those who insist on it, dwell in the putrid air they have created.
The rest of us can embrace who we are fully and beautifully----members of the human family, and gentle soujourners on Mother Earth. She will have the final say, in any case. best to know whose side you're on henceforth. Gaia----now there is some real power!!!!
What happened to standing-up and shouting BULLSHIT!
The numbers Mr. Tristam cites here are pretty simple, perhaps even simple enough for most of the voters to grasp.
Instead of trying to counter the 'two chickens in every pot", feel-good, campaign, why not ask the candidate to substantiate his rhetoric.
At a recent McCain "Town Hall" a VietNam vet challanged McCain's rosey pablum on his support for vets by pointing-out McCain's own voting record. McCain was left stammering that vet organizations support him; he didn't say how many years ago, or in what context, that 'support' was given.
While he was giving a July 4th speach, Bush was heckled and called a war criminal. Although these preple were escorted away, even a brief dose of reality is uncomfortable for those in the bubble.
We need to demand truth and expose reality to fog-up those rose-colored glasses.
Commentator Sam Donaldson once quipped that Reagan came to Washington with a wonderful, new, heart-enlightening message:
"There IS a free lunch!"
Sometimes you wonder if we are completely bonkers when it comes to our tolerance for campaign promises that are totally out of touch with reality. However, as Paul Krugman says, "...a candidate can get away with saying things that are demonstrably untrue, as long as the untruths involve big numbers." And here we are dealing with some really big numbers when it comes to the likely deficits such policies would heap upon our future generations. Of course, it wouldn't be so bad if they just abandoned these crazy promises once elected. However, looking back, we can see that it was in actually implementing some of them that we are in such a deep ($9+ trillion) hole today.
I recently saw a quote from a new book by Barbara Ehrenreich entitled "This Land is Their Land" which struck me as perhaps on target when you look at the way we are spending our way into deeper indebtedness, both personally and nationally. She observes that "somewhere along the line, the ethos changed from 'we're all in this together' to 'get what you can while the getting is good'". Could that be part of why we are such suckers for these incredible promises of a free ride while much around us is crumbling from neglect?
Reality and promise are so far apart they live in different universes. McCain appears to be a candidate standing directly for and endorsed by the Military Industrial Complex party. Exploit until there is nothing left.
What really blows me away is watching minorities, blue collar workers, and farmers voting Republican. This is the party that has succedded in sending them upriver.
The Repugs want Hispanic voters come election time but until then it's all about pandering to White America's fear of brown skinned people. Yet a large number of Hispanics choose these guys. Why?
Blue collar workers have lost more jobs to outsourcing during the last eight years than were lost under Bush I and Cinton combined. Why do these people vote Republican?
Family farms have seen help from the government dry up while big industrial farms get cash left and right. Yet go to any rural county in say Kansas or Missouri and see how Republicans win almost everytime. Can't they see that they are signing away their family's future?
Hispanics vote Republican because they are religious and perceive Repugs as the more religious party. Most are Catholic and follow the anti-abortion party, like some blacks here do, against their best interests.
Ironically, Hispanic religiosity is based on emulation of Jesus the bleeding heart who helped the poor, unlike Republican Mammon worshipers who steal from the poor and kill them in Jesus' name.
People in Puerto Rico think that being a Republicano (statehooder) in PR is the same as being a Republican (racist, elitist, moron) here.
Many PRicans serve(d)in the US military which also trains them to be mindless, jingoist flag waving automatons who vote for the party that waves the flag the most, and spouts the most religious drivel, the Repugs.
I'd like to see a television ad that featured bankers from China, Singapore, UK, maybe even Saudi America saying, "The U.S. owes me X amount," and I don't approve this (McCain) message. Then the next voice would say, "The U.S. owes MY bank/nation X amount," and so forth... so viewers get the picture. I am hoping the BUCK does stop as other nations are proving enablers to the Bush/US MIC war machine.
There may come a time when these nations bid on our Statue of Liberty, Smithsonian Institute, Washington Monument, etc the way wealthy clients bid on auctions at Sothebey's.
Tristam sez: "How would (McCain) make it all up? His campaign foresees $20 billion a year in new revenue from economic growth ...
***
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
... oh. Excuse me, did I laugh out loud? Sorry, carry on with the great economic growth, please.
As predicted, McCain will easily win. After all, there is no opposition.
Why American's don't get sick of the 'Smoke and Mirror's' economizing of the Republican's is often amazing. We as a nation are our own worst enemies! Republican's have 'royally screwed' American's for years. But, still people flock to vote the corruption right back into office. All the time wondering why the mess just gets worse.
whatfools July 13th, 2008 1:17 pm
"Arbeit macht frei"
I truly wish you would quit using this Nazi stuff. I have a couple of friends that walked under that sign. I really would appreciate your considering not using it.
Truth_Forward July 13th, 2008 11:20 pm
"pandering to White America's fear of brown skinned people. Yet a large number of Hispanics choose these guys. Why?"
More than likely its because they know that the above claim is not very true anymore, and many "brown skinned" people aren't racists. But I think its only about 36% or so.
But I think its only about 36% or so.
I of course meant that only about 36% of Latinos vote for the GOP. Got to watch that context.
The George Anheuser Busch of the year 2000, the so-called "political maverick" pouring cup after cup of Straight Talk Espresso for the fawning, belly crawling hacks of the MSM, was not the real George Anheuser Busch. The one you see now - the dour, shuffling, hectoring old man, wagging his finger at the wogs, threatening them with more war, more death, even with annihilation, the 71 year old scared shitless of his own mortality, who has gotten right with God and now feels so much better, the ex-40 year old who wanted to be 25, now 71 and still ogling young women and dreaming feverishly of all that primo tail, as if he were still a Navy fighter jock in his white uniform, hanging out at the officers' club with the other shitfaced Top Guns and filling the air with non-stop misogyny. That's the real George Anheuser Busch. And by God . . . Americans love it. They love it!
starofthesea [July 13th, 2008 3:28 pm] wrote: "Tune out, turn off the TV, stop supporting them by mindless consumption. They will feed you and your kids only poisonous substances for your body and your mind. ... They are terrified of us because they need us as much as they despise us. We are the props they use for their hideous sense of overblown self importance. Laugh in their faces and get busy loving those all around you."
Star, while I agree with much of what you wrote, tuning out and turning off is not that easy. Someone I love, for example, depends for her livelihood on driving a car around during the day. She lives in a big city and has tried public transportation, but it just doesn't work for her one-woman pet care business, part of which necessitates her being able to respond to emergencies. She drives a small economy car for this purpose. She'd like to get a hybrid or electric car, but that's not affordable at the moment, even if they were available (there's a huge waiting list for hybrids in her area). So, she is still dependent on Big Oil to make her way in the world. She also needs to stay in touch with her customers and various veterinarians -- that means she has to pay the telecoms for phone service. You can say she should just go do something else for a living but then you haven't looked for a job lately, have you, especially a job where you wouldn't need a car and working for a business that isn't connected to the corporate power grid in some way? (What good would it do for her to abandon a business she has spent 12 years building that helps sick animals to go work for Exxon Mobil?)
When she buys food, she tries to buy 'green' but that kind of food is often incredibly expensive, forcing her to buy groceries from the local chain supermarket where prices are cheaper. Even there, the labels that say 'organically grown' or 'natural' are often misleading.
For heat and electrical service, she has to depend on the local power monopoly -- there is no alternative.
She's a caring, progressive person who has done everything she can to limit 'mindless consumption' in her life, yet it's not possible for her to completely remove herself from consumption of corporate products and services at this time. What you propose is a nice idea, but won't work unless you can get 30 or 40 percent of America to go along with you -- that's a number that would make an impact. If you come up with a way to change the buying habits of that many of our fellow citizens -- and I sincerely hope you do -- please post it here. Otherwise, my friend, along with millions of other conscientious people, is trapped in the web of global corporations, at least for the foreseeable future. Most of us are linked in some way to the massive globocracy anyway -- for example, you are using a computer, Star. Was it built and programmed by a small 'shade tree' company in your neighborhood? Is your Internet access provided by a guy down the block or by a multi-national corporation? Accepting the ugly facts of the situation we're in, we have to elect politicians who will, however gradually, move in the green, renewable energy direction and that would include Obama.
Siouxrose [July 13th, 2008 11:53 pm], that will be next -- selling our national monuments to the highest bidder. Perhaps France will buy back the Statue of Liberty -- we're only using it for a prop anyway, I mean, it's not like it stands for anything our country actually represents these days.
Perhaps France will buy back the Statue of Liberty — we're only using it for a prop anyway, I mean, it's not like it stands for anything our country actually represents these days.
Bull!
Gee, Thomas More, do you seriously think that America stands for liberty anywhere in the world these days? Tell me where.