I believe that Barack Obama and his team are running one of the most, if not the most, masterful campaigns in U.S. history. One aspect that I feel Democrats have finally caught up with Republicans on is everyone using the same talking points and staying on message (I give Joe Biden seven get out of jail free cards every week) However one area that I believe can still stand some improvement is counterpunches. If you are a boxing fan like me or even a MMA fan which I also love, you know that one of the greatest attributes a fighter can have is anticipation of his opponent's attack. And when that attack comes the truly great fighters are prepared with their counter attack. We should all recognize by now that two of the GOP's favorite talking points are that "raising taxes during an economic downturn is bad" and "Obama wants to make government bigger, and spend more of the taxpayers money without having a way to pay for it." Well here is my vision of how these two talking points could be forever nullified. Just one more way we can move closer to a Barack Obama/Joe Biden win on November 4th
First and foremost I believe that biggest lie that so far has been allowed to fester the most from the McCain campaign and their surrogates is the one where "Every economist will tell you that raising taxes during an economic down turn is the wrong thing to do." I suppose most Obama surrogates just want to run from the mere mention of higher taxes so fast that they leave this low hanging fruit on the table. Folks, would you care to guess what happened last time our country raised taxes and gave tax credits/breaks to the middle class during an economic downturn?? We ended up with a SURPLUS. Which president did it?? Why President Clinton of course.
Shortly after his election, President Clinton insisted on and the Congress enacted a second major tax increase in 1993 in which the top tax rate was raised to 36 percent and a 10 percent surcharge was added, leaving the effective top tax rate at 39.6 percent. Clearly, the trend toward lower marginal tax rates had been reversed, but, as it turns out, only temporarily.
The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 made additional changes to the tax code providing a modest tax cut. The centerpiece of the 1997 Act was a significant new tax benefit to certain families with children through the Per Child Tax credit. The truly significant feature of this tax relief, however, was that the credit was refundable for many lower-income families. That is, in many cases the family paid a "negative" income tax, or received a credit in excess of their pre-credit tax liability. Though the tax system had provided for individual tax credits before, such as the Earned Income Tax credit, the Per Child Tax credit began a new trend in federal tax policy. Previously tax relief was generally given in the form of lower tax rates or increased deductions or exemptions. The 1997 Act really launched the modern proliferation of individual tax credits and especially refundable credits that are in essence spending programs operating through the tax system.
The years immediately following the 1993 tax increase also saw another trend continue, which was to once again shift the balance of the hybrid income tax-consumption tax toward the consumption tax. The movement in this case was entirely on the individual side in the form of a proliferation of tax vehicles to promote purpose-specific saving. For example, Medical Savings Accounts were enacted to facilitate saving for medical expenses. An Education IRA and the Section 529 Qualified Tuition Program was enacted to help taxpayers pay for future education expenses. In addition, a new form of saving vehicle was enacted, called the Roth IRA, which differed from other retirement savings vehicles like the traditional IRA and employer-based 401(k) plans in that contributions were made in after-tax dollars and distributions were tax free.
Despite the higher tax rates, other economic fundamentals such as low inflation and low interest rates, an improved international picture with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the advent of a qualitatively and quantitatively new information technologies led to a strong economic performance throughout the 1990s. This, in turn, led to an extraordinary increase in the aggregate tax burden, with Federal taxes as a share of GDP reaching a postwar high of 20.8 percent in 2000.
By 2001, the total tax take had produced a projected unified budget surplus of $281 billion, with a cumulative 10 year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion.
I saw one of McCain's surrogates this morning former Representative Bob Schaffer who is running against incumbent Democratic Representative Mark Udall in Colorado and he actually tried to take credit for the surplus we had under Bill Clinton. He mentioned the tax credits he mentioned lowered spending and he mentioned increased revenue. But he declined to point out that the increased revenue was from HIGHER TAXES. Now I ask you to look back up and reread the historical record of the Clinton era with respect to taxes. Notice anything familiar? Top tax rate at 39% Tax credits for regular folks. New emphasis on finding ways to help people pay for their medical care. Kinda sounds like Senator Obama's plan doesn't it?
Please Please Please Someone stop the madness and start refuting this idiocy about raising taxes during an economic downturn. All you have to do is say two words Bill Clinton and you win that argument.
The second talking point is this. How can John McCain cut taxes for everyone in this country and pay for HIS spending programs. Remember this is a guy who has repeatedly said we need to get off foreign oil. Its one of his major talking points. Just promoting alternative energy programs alone is going to add to spending in a major way. So where is the revenue going to come from. Better yet you can nail him down on specifics. Nuclear Energy! Nuclear power plants are not cheap. As a matter of fact a recent article on bloomberg.com has estimated the cost of McCain's nuclear energy plan at $315 BILLION DOLLARS. Yes thats with a B. John McCain has been on a crusade in favor of nuclear power and at the same time trying to paint Barack Obama as someone who is against nuclear power. But the question needs to be asked in a straightforward manner. "Senator McCain how will you pay for the nuclear power plants that you say are vital not only to our economy but also to our national security if you cut taxes as you have consistently stated you will?" Remember folks this is a guy in John McCain who RAILED against the Bush tax cuts and said they were too tilted toward the wealthy and that it was irresponsible to cut taxes during a war Now either John McCain is bluffing about trying to get this country off of foreign oil and lieing about being an advocate of alternative energy or he is going to have to raise taxes to follow through. There is no wiggle room on this because even with a spending freeze of existing programs you have to pay for new ones. This should be a topic that he gets BURIED ON. Who wants to use the shovel first?