McCain Tax Cuts Would Bloat Deficit Or Take Huge Spending Curbs

The Wall Street Journal

McCain Tax Cuts Would Bloat Deficit Or Take Huge Spending Curbs
By LAURA MECKLER
April 22, 2008; Page A6

Sen. John McCain is proposing tax cuts that would either cause the federal deficit to explode or would require unprecedented spending cuts equal to one-third of federal spending on domestic programs. Once thought of as a deficit hawk, the near-certain Republican presidential nominee is now putting more stress on the traditional Republican orthodoxy of tax cuts. Altogether, he proposes more than $650 billion in tax cuts a year, much of it benefiting corporations and upper-income families. That includes the cost of extending tax cuts implemented under President Bush that he voted against twice.

To help pay for it all, the Arizona senator says he would cut $160 billion a year from a federal discretionary budget that totals a little more than $1 trillion. He hasn't specified where the cuts would come from. With military spending -- about half the total -- likely to rise or perhaps stay even, most if not all of the cuts would have to come from domestic programs. The discretionary budget, which excludes entitlements such as Medicare or Social Security, covers areas such as medical research, federal prisons, border security, student loans, food inspections and much else. The $160 billion figure is equal to the total budget in 2007 for the departments of Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Justice and State. The chances of cuts of this magnitude are "nonexistent," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that promotes fiscal discipline. "There's not a consensus to cut back on the functions of government that much," he said. "Those are very, very deep cuts."

(snip)

An analysis of federal spending since 1976 show that there has never been a cut in domestic spending as large as what Sen. McCain is proposing, said Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The biggest was in 1982, led by President Reagan, when federal spending was cut by about 17%; most of the cuts were reversed over the next few years, he said. To really cut federal spending, experts say, Sen. McCain would need to attack Social Security and Medicare, popular programs serving seniors. "If you're going to get serious about spending, you have to turn to the entitlement programs," said the Concord Coalition's Mr. Bixby. Sen. McCain took a small step in that direction by suggesting an increase in prescription-drug premiums for wealthy seniors. But that proposal raises only about $2 billion over five years, McCain aides said. Sen. McCain has backed off his earlier promise to eliminate the budget deficit by the end of his first term and now says it may take two terms.

(snip)


URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120882415111033181.html (subscription)

It's already leaking out of our ears.

nation's wealth and 'pukes know social security, Medicare, Medicaid, military pensions, Federal pension, funds for infrastructure repair, and all non-corporate, non-affluent welfare are ripe for the plucking/shearing. :D

and that he will actually cut spending if he were elected? his whole history has been deficet hawk and from reading one of his books, he has usually stayed true to his roots.

$175 billion in corporate tax cuts
Extend and make permanent the Bush tax cuts (which tend to go to the well off)
The AMT tax is mostly progressive.

There are a few token crumbs thrown to the bottom 90% (the AMT will affect some upper middle class people, the tax cut for dependents and there are some benefits for the middle class for the Bush tax cuts). But about 60-80% of McCains tax cuts go to corporations and the wealthy.

How the fuck did we let our country become this? We are in the midst of a housing, food, energy, education, employment, income and healthcare crisis all at the same time and a serious contender for president is proposing massive tax cuts for the wealthy and cutting social programs to fix it.

If (heavy on the if) tax cuts for corporations worked I would probably be ok with it, but supply side economics hasn't worked yet. Wages are stagnant, job growth is in low income fields like retail and finding a job can be hard.

on the other hand, his proposals are not going to make for a "small government."