"Bush's Tax Cuts Are Dead," declared Newsweek Senior Editor Daniel Gross one day after Super Tuesday. What's more, 'twas "McCain's victory [that] dooms them."
Gross's February 6 story was the third in a slideshow lineup on the magazine's front page today (see screencap at right). But far from merely offering a prognosis on the Bush tax cuts, Gross weaved in his own opinion about how a President McCain letting them sunset would be fiscally responsible:
For their part, Republican primary voters have slowly weeded out the candidates most committed to tax cuts and left behind the candidate(s) whose commitment to extending the Bush tax cuts is weakest. To be sure, all the candidates have sworn that they would make the Bush tax cuts permanent. (How they would square that with boosting spending on defense and restoring the mythic Republican value of fiscal conservatism has gone unaddressed.)
[...]
For his part, McCain is making the right noises in the primary. In the tax section of his platform, he commits to making the Bush income and investment tax cuts permanent. But it's not particularly convincing. After all, he's one of the few Republicans with Washington experience that can legitimately claim to be a fiscal hawk. In 2001, McCain, along with Republican apostate Lincoln Chafee, were the only two Republican senators to vote against the first Bush tax cut. In 2003, he was one of three Republicans to vote against the second round, which is one of the reasons the Club for Growth hates him so much. McCain correctly noted that it didn't make sense to cut taxes in a time of war, especially in ways that benefited the wealthy to such a large degree. He voted against the Medicare prescription-drug benefit, recognizing it as a massive unfunded entitlement. His top economic adviser is the reality-based Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, and one of the Republican economists least complicit in the intellectual chicanery behind the Bush fiscal policy.
Let's say McCain wins the election in November, and is confronted with a Democratic Congress, and is faced with a short-term and long-term budget scenario that is worse than the Bush fantasy. Extending the tax cuts in anything approaching their entirety will be an impossibility. Will McCain go to the mat and spend his political capital urging the public to back an extension of the cuts? Would he make bargains with Democrats on subjects about which he has far deeper convictions (say, Iraq) for the sake of extending policies he didn't vote for? Or will he bow to reality and let most of the tax cuts sunset, as they were designed to do?
Gross didn't answer that question with a definite prediction, but he did offer that McCain might take aim at raising taxes on venture capital managers:
McCain isn't a creature of Wall Street. Clinton, Obama, and Giuliani have received far more cash from the financial-services industry than McCain has. Mitt Romney made his fortune in private equity. Of the three (or four) remaining serious candidates, McCain is probably the most likely to call bull on the loophole that lets private-equity and hedge-fund managers pay a 15 percent capital gains tax on wages they're paid for managing other people's money.
So plutocrats, call your accountants!
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Pay More TAXES!
February 6, 2008 - 17:07 ET by gib4ksuI can't wait to pay more taxes. Lets see: Household income over 63,700 pays 25% in Fed Income Tax. 7% Social Security Tax. 3% Medicare. 6% State. 8% in local sales tax. 60 cents per gallon of gasoline or higher. It almost adds up to 50% when it is all said and done. I can't wait to pay 60%!
"Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." Ronald Reagan
For and against
February 6, 2008 - 17:14 ET by Jerry MackMcCain: I voted twice against the tax cuts but now I am for them. His good friend John Kerry said something very similar about the war in Iraq.
Ah Newspeak magazine can't
February 6, 2008 - 17:16 ET by HumanEventsAh Newspeak magazine can't hide its liberalism too well once again.
"How they would square that with boosting spending on defense and restoring the mythic Republican value of fiscal conservatism has gone unaddressed."
Uhhhh, tax cuts are not paid for by the government, they are less money being confiscated from the people who earned and own it!
"McCain correctly noted that it didn't make sense to cut taxes in a time of war, especially in ways that benefited the wealthy to such a large degree."
Once again, if Newsweek was really a news magazine and not biased, it would have said, "McCain contended that it didn't make sense...." But no. They are not objective. They are liberal. Therefore they say McCain correctly took that position. A position of many that conservatives denounce him for. It's fine for them to have these left wing opinions but disgraceful that they deceive the public in pretending they are not biased to the left.
Human Events, you just
February 6, 2008 - 17:29 ET by BDHuman Events, you just NAILED one of my sore spots. That being that tax cuts "Must be paid for" in a budget.
Argh....
It assumes the federal government reducing taxes is actually an OUTLAY!
If the role of taxation is to raise money to pay for limited governmental expenditures, and it is proveable that reduced taxes actually makes this easier through improved revenues, what is the point of actually raising taxes?
Other than to act as a punishment for some segments of the population.
"Republican primary voters have slowly weeded out..."
February 6, 2008 - 17:16 ET by RJ"For their part, Republican primary voters have slowly weeded out the candidates most committed to tax cuts and left behind the candidate(s) whose commitment to extending the Bush tax cuts is weakest."
WRONG! Republican voters have done no such thing.
The "weeding out" has been done by the media and the legerdemain of two dishonest candidates. they have split the conservative Republican vote, leaving us with a liberal, pro-tax "Republican" in the lead.
I'm shocked, I say shocked!
February 6, 2008 - 17:16 ET by candanceThe lib talking points about McCain have begun. But don't worry folks, it'll be okay cause he's a real Republican!
Vote McCain
McCain
February 6, 2008 - 17:31 ET by iveseenitallMcCain will raise taxes. Bush the elder did it to "compromise" with the Dims. McCain will too. After all, he must "reach across the asile" in order for the Dims to steady the knife that will slit your throat.
P.S. McCain and Huckabee acted like high school cheerleaders jealous of the prom queen in West Virginia. They really despise the more competent, richer Mitt, so they got together and stole his rightful delegates. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
iveseenitall
February 6, 2008 - 17:35 ET by candanceCheck my link, I think you'll like it. Anyone who knows me on here knows how I really feel.
;-)
Right
February 6, 2008 - 17:44 ET by iveseenitallRight on, Candance. The guy doesn't know where he is. You'll see that video over and over once he's nominated.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
candance,
February 6, 2008 - 17:38 ET by R D HelmLOL-Nice to see I am not the only one feeling a little cynical today.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
McCain was against them before he was...
February 6, 2008 - 17:44 ET by celatorMcCain was against tax cuts, before he was for them, before he was against them, before he was for them......well, a guy can change his mind depending on which MSM reporter he's trying to hornswoggle, can't he?? Sheesh. ;+}
Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.
Newsweek is right, for
February 6, 2008 - 18:06 ET by mattmNewsweek is right, for once.
Juan McAmnesty dooms the tax cuts because if he wins, he won't sign a bill (if one would even be proposed) to make the tax cuts permanent. If he loses, the Libs will allow them to expire.
Get ready to tighten your belts, America...
THE TRUTH ON BUSH TAX CUTS (data is here)
February 6, 2008 - 20:46 ET by reelman46BUSH TAX CUTS “ONLY FOR THE RICH”?? (see data here)
Based
on using the actual tax tables (see link below), here are some examples
on what the taxes were/are on various amounts of income for both
singles and married couples. so let’s see if the Bush tax cuts only
helped the rich.
> http://www.taxfounda...
Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
——————————————————————-
> Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
> Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
> Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
> Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
> Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750
> Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OF COURSE, WHEN DID FACTS EVER STOP A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT FROM LYING????
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Hard to believe that as
February 6, 2008 - 23:26 ET by RESTLESS 1Hard to believe that as recently as the early eighties and before the top tax rate was 70%!!!!!! Yeah, there were tax cuts for the rich along the way, but hell, they needed them. SEVENTY PERCENT of anyone's income is ridiculous. When will some people get it throught their heads? It is NOT their money.
RESTLESS 1 Spending someone else's money is a HARD habit
February 6, 2008 - 23:54 ET by upcountrywaterto break.
iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..
4 (unthinkable) H-bombs, NOW THAT'S SOME CHANGE
Keep the change Bob. h/t Sam Peckinpah
UCW
February 6, 2008 - 23:59 ET by RESTLESS 1I just wish the likes of Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, et al, would let me spend their money. I would love the oppurtunity to prove that I could break the habit, in 30-40 years or so. :)
RESTLESS 1 WOW You do show some fiscal restraint !
February 7, 2008 - 00:22 ET by upcountrywaterLet me TAKE those profits, oh I mean only 70% PER YEAR ain't I nice, ;-) ...
Even if the islamopuss goes away, the next 4-8 years are going to suck (as in your bank accounts) I quit, I ain't workin for the man.
iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..
4 (unthinkable) H-bombs, NOW THAT'S SOME CHANGE
Keep the change Bob.
UCW
February 7, 2008 - 00:31 ET by RESTLESS 1I hear you. If things get any more socialist around here, most of the productive members of society will quit. I made the comment a few days ago that the irony will be when we all cash out our 401's and move to Mexico.
RESTLESS 1 I have had friends move to New Zealand
February 7, 2008 - 00:46 ET by upcountrywatermexico humm, maybe it's just the border towns. Of course NZ got gun issues, so much so, home invasion is a thriving enterprise. No place to run,or hide, is it this bad, am i dreamin? WAKE ME SHAKE ME HURRY
iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..
4 (unthinkable) H-bombs, NOW THAT'S SOME CHANGE
Keep the change Bob.h/t Sam Peckinpah
UCW
February 7, 2008 - 00:57 ET by RESTLESS 1Sorry friend, but I seem to be stuck in the same nightmare.
I do think most of the violence is in the border cities. I was thinking more along the lines of the Gulf or Pacific coasts. Or maybe Tahiti.
R1 Sun Just set here Hawaii (winter) Tahiti is well, um French
February 7, 2008 - 01:13 ET by upcountrywaterAND Lots of people think Hawaii is pricey!
Ah France 75% electricity h/t atomic. Very conservative country now ..LMAO
If they build an atomic power plant there , I'm going.
4 (unthinkable) H-bombs, NOW THAT'S SOME CHANGE
Keep the change Bob.
UCW
February 7, 2008 - 01:19 ET by RESTLESS 1I'm just glad the French went right with Sarkozy. Once Chirac was gone, I could once again enjoy a nice glass of Chivas on the rocks. Before, I was boycotting French products. :)
R 1 I'm such the boycotter,
February 7, 2008 - 02:03 ET by upcountrywaterMaybe take the concorde to Paris, now that France is cool.
Saw one of those in Kona.
July 1969 Dec 1972
We ain't ever going leave earth orbit again.
iranian uranium; iranian uranium, iranian uranium..
4 (unthinkable) H-bombs, NOW THAT'S SOME CHANGE
Keep the change Bob.
A bad case of premature Orgasm
February 6, 2008 - 21:12 ET by JayTeeNewsweek better put their britches back on, there is no one in the room named McCain who is President.
But It's nice to know who in the MSM that McCain can count on.
Rush Limbaugh may be correct again
February 6, 2008 - 22:56 ET by Lame CherryI was discussing this today and someone pointedly told me, "I will not vote for McCain period. I will just stay home on election day".
I refuse to be a part of this sham with John McCain the more I see of him. Conservatives have been lied to continuously since Ronald Reagan left office. We have been told to shut up and go away by Bush 41's people. We have been blamed for the losses of moderates like Dole. We have elected majorities to Congress and been left hanging without ONE FRICKING BILL PASSED THAT WAS CONSERVATIVE. Then we had W jerk us around with Frist, Lott and Haz in telling us illegals were good.
We got Roberts but had to work for Alito. Except for energy policy and a policy to fight the next world war, we were left hanging by W. too.
Now we have been set up in our candidate George Allen was taken down, Fred Thompson who knows what his agenda was in not doing a thing and now Romney is being flamed by the Huckster, Paulster and McCainster in tag team.
I will look into the Constitution party and hope they are listed in my state. I will waste my vote there, but highly doubt I will be persuaded to vote for McCain in any form.
If Cochran is afraid of McCain being a kook.........I will not be a part of the blame for electing this shill of the cartels.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Conviction
February 7, 2008 - 00:18 ET by nwahsI heard a discussion today on Rush's show about conservatives who are conservatives because of principle or conviction. It had me considering who left in the race is running on conviction and who is running on opportunity. Three names strike me as running on conviction - Huckabee, Romney, and Obama. IMO Clinton and McCain are politcal prostitutes - opportunists. In the end, which ever of those three running for conviction and are at the top of a ticket, I'm going to vote for - I don't care which party. I will NOT hold my nose and vote for a political prostitute. Anyone running on conviction, misguided as it may be, has to have more interest in the country than a political prostitute. I will not vote for an oppotunist.
Write-In
February 7, 2008 - 06:51 ET by jsteve2xYou know, Rush did comment that a "Write-In" would be a viable alternative. Maybe Newt as a write-in?