McCainonomics

John McCain's big economic policy speech hasn't really gotten the attention it deserves from progressive blogs. But recall that we've heard in earlier McCain addresses that he wants to continue the war in Iraq indefinitely and also that he thinks we need to boost baseline defense spending. In his economic speech, he does what Republicans do and proposes a huge raft of tax cuts. Naturally, being a straight-talker, he's not afraid to tell people that a certain price will be paid for these defense hikes and tax cuts. As he explains, paying for his program will require "taking the savings from earmark, program review, and other budget reforms."

Straight talk!

Or, in reality, obfuscation. Clearly the reforms per se aren't going to save any money. McCain is proposing processes that could lead to program cuts. But he won't, you know, actually name any programs that he think ought to be cut. Because, after all, if he told people what he was planning to cut, they might realize that they liked these programs. So better to refer to them in a vague way. But in essence, McCain is saying we should reduce funding for our transportation infrastructure. And that at a time of rising food prices, poor people should get less in the way of food assistance. And that the federal law enforcement apparatus should do more with less. That product safety inspections can be pared back. That maybe environmental and labor regulations don't really need to be enforced. Or perhaps the national parks should fall into a state of disrepair. Who knows? McCain won't tell us what'll get the ax, but there's just no way to do what he's proposing to do on the tax-and-warmongering sides of the budget without seriously scaling back on domestic programs.

Comments

"Straight talk!"

Reminds me of R. Kelly's "Real Talk"

Posted by yep | April 16, 2008 2:52 PM

How about cutting off Social Security benefits to all retirees with a net worth above a million or two? Also, if we are going to cut some taxes, how about balancing it with a 100%, no deduction estate tax, until all Medicare benefits are recouped?

Posted by Will Allen | April 16, 2008 3:18 PM

Cutting every earmark ($13.2 billion) from the federal budget funds about 1 month of the occupation of Iraq. And the earmark for a fish ladder in Congressman Generic's district may be pork to John McCain but fisheries policy is a national interest and the same fish ladder that offends John McCain as an earmark could be funded under a Commerce committee budget so there is no savings. In short, McCain is sketchy on the facts.

Posted by joejoejoe | April 16, 2008 3:27 PM

McCain won't tell us what'll get the ax, but there's just no way to do what he's proposing to do on the tax-and-warmongering sides of the budget without seriously scaling back on domestic programs.

There are obviously two ways to go with this. One is to bounce off the tax-and-deficits-and-warmongering to say McCain is exactly the same as Bush (call it McSame). Another approach might be: He's a confused old flip-flopper with no core beliefs who gets a free ride from the media on his endlessly flexible convictions (McFlip).

Democrats so far, from what I can see, have gone with the McSame strategy. I think the McFlip approach has the dual advantages of (a) having much more surface plausibility and (b) appealing to a broader swathe of the electorate--straight through to the Republican base, in fact. So I'm curious why McSame is the way we've decided to go.

Posted by southpaw | April 16, 2008 3:34 PM

Hmmm, I hear immigrants (legal and illegal) work here and send some of their earnings back to their home country. That's all money not being spent in the U.S. on our own goods and services. McCain should propose all classes of immigrants be barred from this practice. Hell, that just by itself would eliminate the national debt and allow us to put a man on Mars. And the tip jar at restaurants normally doled out to the dishwashers should be forwarded to the CIA to help catch Bin Laden. I'll have more ideas later.

Posted by steve duncan | April 16, 2008 3:34 PM

As I posted before, here's a great pie chart of where the budget goes. The only thing McCain can or will touch is the 18% under "Everything Else". That comes out to about $540 billion. In order to balance the budget, including the stoppage of "borrowing" trust funds, he needs to pare down about 90% of that.

How can he do that? He can't. Either he knows that, which means he's lying, or he can't understand it, which means he's not mentally fit to be President.

Posted by LFC | April 16, 2008 3:43 PM

Back in 2002, Vice President Cheney famously told Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Now just two months after promising to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term, self-described Reagan foot soldier John McCain has decided he agrees.

For the details, see:
"McCain's Deficit Attention Disorder."

Posted by Furious | April 16, 2008 4:13 PM

"But he won't, you know, actually name any programs that he think ought to be cut. Because, after all, if he told people what he was planning to cut, they might realize that they liked these programs."

No, that's not the reason his proposals lack specifics. McMaverick has NO idea of which programs he would cut - because he doesn't care and doesn't plan to cut ANYTHING if he's elected.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it - the plan to loot the US Treasury is working just fine.

Posted by CParis | April 16, 2008 5:18 PM

"Deficits don't matter. Reagan proved that." This quote by Cheney pinpoints the flaw in the argument that vast increases in military spending utilized to continue useless operations or conduct unwinable wars will lead to decreased domestic spending or higher taxes now or in the future. We can borrow for ever and ever and ever and therefore stay in Iraq just as long without alienating vast majorities of the population by cutting programs they rely on and telling them to go hang.
Of course, if Cheney is wrong, then the country will indeed collapse, probably sooner rather than later. But he couldn't be wrong because he was elected twice and hasn't been impeached, and American's aren't that worthless.

Posted by Jack | April 16, 2008 7:56 PM

"Also, if we are going to cut some taxes, how about balancing it with a 100%, no deduction estate tax, until all Medicare benefits are recouped?"

It's worth remembering that the part of the payroll tax that funds about half of Medicare is uncapped, so most Americans who earned enough over their careers to build large estates already paid plenty into Medicare. In any case, tax rates approaching 100% tend to discourage compliance, and folks who are smart enough to accumulate a lot of money are usually smart enough to figure out how to not let someone take 100% of that money away from them. We could probably generate more revenue with a 10% estate tax with zero deductions, because it would broaden out the tax base to include everyone who didn't die broke.

And one way to cut Medicare costs would be to phase in a higher age for eligibility, as has already been done with Social Security. Start phasing in an age 67 start to Medicare eligibility instead of age 65.

Posted by Fred | April 16, 2008 8:27 PM

also that he thinks we need to boost baseline defense spending

Paul and Kucinich are the only two sitting national politicians I can remember ever saying they wanted to cut "baseline defense spending." IIRC it's possible that both Clinton and one of Ford or Nixon did that, but I'm unaware of them talking about it publicly. All three current Presidential candidates say they want a bigger military with higher soldier compensation, so I'm not sure why McCain's being singled out.

Also, if we are going to cut some taxes, how about balancing it with a 100%, no deduction estate tax, until all Medicare benefits are recouped?

Interesting idea, but Fred's probably right that inheritors would go to extreme lengths to avoid a possible full-scale confiscation of their parents' accumulated wealth. I imagine it would be a record-keeping nightmare. I also imagine it would lead to hundreds of thousands of deceased who are, on paper, not deceased. From there, it's only a matter of time before the next young politician named Kennedy has them casting votes.

Posted by Shinyk | April 17, 2008 1:51 AM