Wow! If you don't love the guys at FactCheck.org as much as I do, you really need to make sure you are still alive. FactCheck's bottom line up front:
McCain's argument is that:
1. The McCain economic plan will cut $100 billion of the discretionary budget.
2. Past and present earmarks account for $100 billion of the discretionary budget.
3. Therefore, the McCain economic plan will cut past and present earmarks.
The argument is seductive. But consider another argument that has exactly the same logical structure:
1. Clouds are white and fluffy.
2. Sheep are white and fluffy.
3. Therefore, clouds are sheep.
And:
In McCain's world, everyone gets a pony
Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania has the website (just in case you didn't already know), FactCheck.org, and they are a non-partisan agency that sticks to "Just the Facts" of the BS our politicians present. They just released two new analysis of John McCain's budget proposals (Part I, and Part II) and this just solidifies why I appreciate what they do even more (read them because they are worth the time).
I sent an email on the 8th of May to Editor@FactCheck.org asking a series of questions on both McCain and Obama's proposals. I am not claiming that they responded with these analysis specifically because of my email, but I couldn't be happier with the results. Here are two of the questions I asked in that email:
On taxes, McCain has called for the Bush Tax Cuts to be permanent, while Obama has proposed a tax structure similar to when Bill Clinton was in office. How have those two approaches worked in generating tax revenue, and what income levels have seen the largest benefits vs. who has been hurt the most? Who is currently affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax, and who would benefit by eliminating it and by how much like McCain is proposing? How many people will actually be affected if we eliminate taxes for seniors like Obama proposes, and how much lost revenue will that create?
And
On earmark spending, Obama has proposed a pay-as-you-go approach to new government projects first having a source of funding prior to execution. McCain has proposed to veto any bill with any earmarks. Please explain how many earmarks have actually been signed into law in the past, where has that money has gone, and maybe what do economists say will be the effect if every single dollar of government spending must go through the full process as McCain is therefore proposing. Also, what is the history behind a pay-as-you-go approach to government spending and how effective has it been?
While I am really looking forward to hearing what they say about Obama's plans, they seem to have nailed the questions I had about McCain's plans completely. (I really believe emailing the agencies like FactCheck AND some of the MSM works).
I have really been concerned about fiscal responsibility, budget proposals and (especially) taxes for a few reasons.
- One of the GOPs most successful platforms is that they claim to be the party of low taxes. The WIDELY held view is that "Democrats will raise my taxes", and the Republicans will cut them. The average person that buys into this view doesn't understand who exactly is benefiting from the tax cuts and we need to expose it thoroughly.
- We all know that McCain's fiscal plan is a disaster, but now we have the proof and facts readaly accessible to back it up. This election is going to come down to two large issues: The economy and Iraq. At the absolute base of McCain's plan for the economy is tax cuts, eliminating pork spending, and a lot of "bullshit" (J. Biden on Bush, 15 May 2008).
- The past seven years have left the next President with a "Quagmire" (D. Cheney on Iraq, 1993) with respect to the budget, unlike when Clinton left office. Mandatory spending is uncontrollable, discretionary spending is larger than it's ever been, and our grandchildren's futures are going to depend greatly on how the next President handles it.
- Every major proposal McCain tosses around on the Straight Talk Express is completely destroyed by these two articles. I don't want it to get lost because Bush threw himself into the thick of the campaign from Jerusalem.
- I am a finance officer and money is what I do! If nothing else, bookmark these articles (Part I, and Part II) for future use when the topic hits front and center.