Help is on the Way

This week is economy week for John McCain, so it's worth giving some more scrutiny to McCain's economic policy proposals. For example, suppose that you, like so many Americans in these topys-turvey times, are a large and hugely profitable oil company. Your coffers are groaning under the weight of record profits driven by sky-high commodities prices. And you earn your living by poisoning the planet, all the while plowing a share of your profits back into bribes to ensure that the policy environment leaves most people with few viable alternatives to purchasing your product. You've got a tough life, and John McCain has a plan for you, a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.

The five largest oil companies in America would collectively save $3.8 billion per year under this plan, offering some change you can believe in if you're an ExxonMobil executive. But don't worry, it's not as if he only has plans for oil executives. No. Suppose you're in your late fifties or early sixties and looking to retire soon, but worried you won't be able to since so much of your wealth was tied up in your house and now the market's gone soft. Well never fear, John McCain has a plan to cut your Social Security benefits in an unknown manner and by an unknown amount in order to balance the budget in the face of his huge corporate tax cut.

After all, who needs Social Security when you can retire on a Senator's pension plus live off your heiress wife's vast fortune? In a world where the typical family owns eleven houses and lets their dependent kids spend $50,000 per month on mommy's credit card, there's no real role for the government in providing retirement security.

Comments

That argument against reducing the corporate tax return is beyond stupid.

In Canada, Europe, and around the world left of centre governments have been reducing that rate; a company in Ontario or British Columbia for instance, pays a much lower rate than does the average US company because that 35 tax rate (on top of applicable state rates) is just far too high.

Other taxes should be raised; loopholes should be closed; the corporate tax rate isn't one of them.

Posted by JFD | July 7, 2008 9:59 AM

McCain doesn't have a shot (barring a terror attack) unless he really comes clean on the economy and realizes how bad things are (or at least how bad Americans perceive them to be) for most folks. He's the out of touch candidate...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | July 7, 2008 10:00 AM

But he's a maverick! And Obama is a cynical opportunist. Facts are unnecessary.

Posted by NHCt | July 7, 2008 10:01 AM

That argument against reducing the corporate tax return is beyond stupid.

In Canada, Europe, and around the world left of centre governments have been reducing that rate; a company in Ontario or British Columbia for instance, pays a much lower rate than does the average US company because that 35 tax rate (on top of applicable state rates) is just far too high.

Other taxes should be raised; loopholes should be closed; the corporate tax rate isn't one of them.

Posted by JFD | July 7, 2008 10:01 AM

What sort of jackass flies to Aspen to gab with other jackasses, and then singles out oil companies for "poising" the planet? I'm somewhat sorry for the invective, but how else to describe someone so apparently smugly devoid of self awareness? But, hey, Matthew you've never had chocolate so well-paired with duck, right? "Poising" the planet must be tolerated at times, right, when the purpose is soooooooo important, right?

Posted by Will Allen | July 7, 2008 10:12 AM

Other taxes should be raised; loopholes should be closed; the corporate tax rate isn't one of them.

"Other" taxes? Very bold of you to specify! A modest proposal - everyone who believes corporate marginal rates should be lowered, such as yourself, should have their rates increased to offset the corporate cut. That'd be fair, right?

Posted by jeff S. | July 7, 2008 10:12 AM

That argument against reducing the corporate tax return is beyond stupid.

Someone needs to learn the difference between theory and practice.

Posted by mpowell | July 7, 2008 10:14 AM

But he's a maverick! And Obama is a cynical opportunist. Facts are unnecessary.

Posted by NHCt | July 7, 2008 10:14 AM

a company in Ontario or British Columbia for instance, pays a much lower rate than does the average US company because that 35 tax rate (on top of applicable state rates) is just far too high.

Let me make sure I understand you: A company in Canada pays a lower income tax because the American tax rate is higher.

Well, I can't argue with logic like that. Did you ever think of that, Matt? Can't you see that our companies pay more because our rate is higher?

By the way, JFD, totally awesome job of not only failing to prove whatever point you were trying to make, but also of ingoring all other taxes and sources of government income in the process. Well done.

Posted by Seitz | July 7, 2008 10:20 AM

For example, suppose that you, like so many Americans in these topys-turvey times, are a large and hugely profitable oil company. Your coffers are groaning under the weight of record profits driven by sky-high commodities prices. And you earn your living by poisoning the planet, all the while plowing a share of your profits back into bribes to ensure that the policy environment leaves most people with few viable alternatives to purchasing your product.

Wow, what is in the kool-aid in Aspen? Oil companies don't make their living by poisoning the planet. They make their living by bringing energy to the world that demands it. The costs associated with bringing every barrel of oil to the market have skyrocketed along with the price of oil. And to imply bribery so brazenly is rediculous. I expect a more intelligent conversation on this blog, not this shrill BS. Aspen sounds more like a circle-jerk than a place to actually think about policy.

That being said, McCain is a moron and his economic policies suck. JFD is making a valid point about international corporate tax rates. If you want to compete in the global economy, you have to make sure your nations corporations can compete. Personally, I think 35% is ok.

Posted by JAB | July 7, 2008 10:25 AM

Oil companies don't make their living by poisoning the planet.

Well, anybody who doesn't think oil companies poison the planet has never worked in an oil field.

And oil companies certainly plan a great deal of their business around externalizing the costs of that pollution to the public sector.

And anybody who doesn't think that they're accomplishing that by a form of legalized bribery has never worked a day on Capitol Hill.

So . . .

Posted by Brautigan | July 7, 2008 10:35 AM

you earn your living by poisoning the planet

This is easily the most insane line I've ever seen Matt right. Clearly he thinks we'd be a lot better off if the energy companies just vanished into thin air. No more poison!

The five largest oil companies in America would collectively save $3.8 billion per year under this plan, offering some change you can believe in if you're an ExxonMobil executive.

Matt would do well to read this op-ed before being ignorant on his blog.

Posted by right | July 7, 2008 10:39 AM

Just to clarify, do you have to be one of the 5 biggest domestic oil companies to take advantage of McCain's tax cut? Will small midwestern manufacturers that pay a living wage and defined benefit pension plans still have to pay the top rate? What about small entrepreneurial shops, like eco-friendly dry cleaners?

If the tax cut will only apply to "evil" companies, how does McCain propose to make this determination?

Posted by mike | July 7, 2008 10:41 AM

"...who needs Social Security when you can retire on a Senator's pension plus live off your heiress wife's vast fortune? In a world where the typical family owns eleven houses and lets their dependent kids spend $50,000 per month on mommy's credit card, there's no real role for the government in providing retirement security."

Some perspective on our Senators' finances:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/13/senators.finances/

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, to discover that there's a Senator who has multiple houses, is rich, will retire on a Senator's pension, etc...

Is marrying into money somehow ethically different that being born into money? Just curious.

Posted by kafka | July 7, 2008 10:45 AM

JAB & right: You guys totally misread MY. He said:

"poising the planet"

not "poisoning the planet"

Poising the planet refers to balancing or reaching some sort of equilibrium. And who can object to that?

UNRELATED: When will there be a fund-raiser to get a proofreader for Matthew?

Posted by Quiddity | July 7, 2008 10:48 AM

Quiddity,

While I am always supportive of efforts to mock Matt's typos, the post appears to say "poisoning" now so I guess he has edited for once.

Posted by right | July 7, 2008 10:54 AM

JFD said... That argument against reducing the corporate tax return is beyond stupid.

Comparing the business tax rate in this country to the rest of the world is beyond stupid. Try comparing business taxes paid. Due to a highly favorable set of deductions, definitions, and loopholes, American businesses don't actually pay an average much different than the rest of the industrial world.

If business tax cuts are balanced by business tax simplification, and comes out at least revenue neutral, I'm in. Otherwise, it's a giveaway program designed by people who want the middle class to bear the highest effective tax rate in the system.

Posted by LFC | July 7, 2008 11:53 AM

coporate income taxes + evil oil companies = bees in bonnets.

who knew?

Posted by An Outhouse | July 7, 2008 12:50 PM

Matt's even got a passé putdown. Today, it should be:

"Who needs Social Security when you can win all you need at the high-stakes craps table?"

Posted by jlw | July 7, 2008 5:27 PM

McCain + "It's a Google" = a really bad economic policy

Posted by cha cha cha | July 7, 2008 5:27 PM

Jeebus:

“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.”

Savings from a war? Another example of WTF!

Summer reruns: Day of the Dead Weight Press. So less than B grade that we should all stick to blogs.

Posted by Me_again | July 7, 2008 6:39 PM

All the oil company astro-turfers are out in force today, I see.

The Likudniks must be taking the day off.

I have a better idea. Let's take the trillions the oil companies want the taxpayer to spend getting them new oil fields in Iraq and Iran and pipelines in Afghanistan and spend it on nanotechnology research to put the fucking oil companies OUT OF BUSINESS FOREVER.

Sound like a plan?

Let's start by assassinating the oil company CEOs and their lobbyists and the politicians they bribe on the Hill. That will level the playing field.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 7, 2008 10:23 PM