John McCain's Candidacy for Presidency should have ended today

Strike One

McCain calls the concept of Social Security "an absolute disgrace"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugN8Rn5baqM

John Marshall at Slate documents how McCain's campaign continued to attack, not the current state of Social Security but the initial design, where present day workers contribute and part of that contribution is used for present day retirees.

1) That's how the system was designed to operate. And it's served as financial bedrock of retirement security in this country for going on a century. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/203287.php

2)In other words, there's no question that John McCain thinks that the problem with Social Security is the way it was designed at the very beginning, the way it was always designed to work. Sometimes he just uses more flowery language than others. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/203377.php

3) Now, as Mr. McCain might, let's have some straight talk. What McCain believes is no different from what President Bush and others did and do believe when they wanted to phase out Social Security and replace it with a system of private investment accounts. He's just been a bit clumsier about hiding what he's pushing for. The debate about Social Security is the same as it was in 2005 and in most respects the same as it was in 1965. You have one group who believe in the current system -- which is an intergenerational bargain, insuring a baseline level of retirement security as well as insurance against premature, disability and for dependent children. The other side -- McCain's side -- thinks this is just wrong, morally and economically. And in its place they want to create a system of individual private investment accounts -- similar to a lifetime 401k.

That's the essence of the debate. And no one should be deceived by McCain's own efforts to twist and spin his own words retrospectively. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/203491.php

This alone should have ended McCain's campaign - on to strike two

Strike Two

McCain's claim that he will end the Iraqi war by 2013 and that he will balance the budget with it is just laughable

This is really a two-fer - his claim that he intends that he will end the war and that will balance the budget

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/

John McCain’s plan to balance the budget by 2013 may have just taken the prize for Most Ridicule Sustained in a 24-Hour Period. (Before that, McCain's and Clinton’s gas-tax holiday proposals held the title.) The biggest gripe: It’s hard to see how McCain would sustain the Bush tax cuts, which the CBO estimates would create a $443 billion deficit by 2013, and still find room for his estimated $300 billion in additional tax proposals while also eliminating the deficit.

The McCain campaign promises to reach the Big Zero through a combination of economic growth, controlled spending, and bipartisan budget efforts. But they don’t provide any numbers to show how much the economy must grow, how much spending they’d rein in, or what areas they’d trim. (Read his whole plan here.) Then there’s this:

The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.

This statement is … problematic. For one thing, reducing deficit spending doesn’t free up money. It’s just means we don’t create money. So while it may reduce the deficit, it does nothing to reduce the overall debt and balance the budget.

But there’s another problem: Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan will cost money before it saves money. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last year that reducing troops levels to 75,000 by 2013 would cost an additional $205 billion (that is, in addition to current spending levels) between 2008 and 2013. Only after that would the United States start saving—or, rather, not spending cash we don’t have. A faster drawdown to 30,000 troops by 2010 would reduce the deficit over the same period, but only by $70 billion. (Read the CBO estimate here; details here.) The CBO will have a new estimate in September.

So even if McCain was able to achieve his definition of victory in Iraq as laid out in his “Four Year Vision” speech in May—“The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role”—it wouldn’t likely save money until later. And it would certainly play little to no role in balancing the budget by 2013.