- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
McCain Fleshes Out Tax Proposals
Email
ShareApril 15, 2008 5:15 PM
ABC News's Bret Hovell, Tahman Bradley and Teddy Davis Report: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., laid out a strategy to address the struggling U.S. economy Tuesday, proposing to double tax exemptions for dependents, and to ask higher income retirees to pay more for their prescription drugs under Medicare.
The plan, which was announced at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pa., was billed by McCain’s campaign as a longer-term strategy for helping Americans hurt by the slowing economy. It comes less than a week after McCain proposed some shorter-term economic goals in a speech in Brooklyn.
McCain proposed doubling the tax exemption for dependents, to $7,000 from $3,500, which could lower taxes on a large swath of the middle class.
"Mothers and fathers bear special responsibilities, and the tax code should recognize this," said McCain.
The campaign estimates that doubling the dependent exemption would cost about $65 billion annually.
McCain's proposed changes to Medicare would require higher-income seniors to pay more in Medicare premiums for their prescription drugs. That plan is estimated by the campaign to save about $400 million dollars each year.
McCain did not specify who among affluent seniors would be hit by higher drug premiums. But McCain spokesman Brian Rogers told ABC News that the Arizona senator's proposal would begin to be phased in for seniors making $80,000 or more.
McCain also proposed a gas tax holiday between Memorial Day and Labor day of this year, eliminating the 18 cents per gallon federal levy that consumers pay for a gallon of gasoline during the busy summer travel months.
That is expected to cost between $8 billion and $10 billion dollars, but would only be a one time expense.
Taken as a whole, McCain’s economic plans – which include ending the alternate minimum tax, reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, and implementing first-year expensing of new equipment and technology -- would cost the federal government, according to the McCain campaign, $195 billion dollars in revenue. The McCain campaign says that that total would be offset by spending cuts and the elimination of pork barrel spending. McCain would also implement a one year moratorium on discretionary spending. That would save $15 billion for that year.
McCain is also in favor of maintaining the tax cuts proposed and signed by President Bush, tax cuts he originally opposed. The campaign claimed that the cost of those tax cuts would not be taken into account, because they are not factored in to the current budget.
McCain's proposal drew a swift rebuke from the Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank which has taken the lead for the Democrats in offering critiques of McCain's policy prescriptions.
"The bottom line is that the McCain campaign estimates that all these tax cuts together costs about $195 billion a year," said James Kvaal, a domestic-policy expert with the liberal Center for American Progress. "We would put the number closer to $300 billion a year."
The key difference between McCain's estimate and the one prepared by the Center for American Progress is that the Arizona senator has estimated that there would be no cost associated with his corporate investment incentives while C.A.P. estimates that it will cost $75 billion per year.
C.A.P.'s Robert Gordon criticized McCain's doubling of the tax exemption for dependents, saying that it was a less progressive approach than the one pursued by President Bush.
"As tax breaks for families go, [it's] a highly regressive tax break," said Gordon. "It compares unfavorably with President Bush's expansion of the child tax credit. Expand[ing] the child tax credit is worth $500, for everyone who owes $500 in income taxes."
By contrast, he added, "when you expand a deduction or an exclusion, which is what Sen. McCain has done, it's worth much more to people in higher brackets. So this is a proposal that is worth more than twice as much to someone earning a million dollars, more than twice as much to Carly Fiorina," [the former Hewlett-Packard CEO and current RNC Victory Chairwoman] "as it would be worth to her secretary."
April 15, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (14)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think this whole article is sided with the liberal-think tank's point of view?
I felt it was pretty one-sided.
I heard McCain's speech today, and LOVED what he said!
Posted by: Samian | Apr 15, 2008 7:15:10 PM
Anyone hear?Anyone interested?
Posted by: Sherrie | Apr 15, 2008 7:20:09 PM
Hey is not fixing this prob he is shifting it.It will be there ,change the whole thing.You are not addressing the older people just asking the rich to pay more.I remember one senator who retired and he was rich did not want to take SS he didn't need it they told him he had to.Was from NJ...Rich now pay more for meds ok????Lower them for us who can't pay for what we need>>>>DURRRRRRRRRRRTake ALL the big money out of Washington....Fix the whole state of crap.Putting it nicely.....
Posted by: h | Apr 15, 2008 7:27:57 PM
What's to debate? The rich don't pay taxes, the poor don't pay taxes. The middle class pays all the taxes. And the poor are "taxed" to the hilt every time the fed prints more money out of thin air leading to inflation. What's to debate? WHAT? If there is nobody willing to take the necessary reforms to fix this once and for all. All opinions on this matter are meaningless.
Posted by: Ned | Apr 15, 2008 7:45:06 PM
McCAIN IS ELECTABLE IN NOVEMBER.
THE DEMOCRATS -HILLARY AND OBAMA-HAVE ELECTABILITY PROBLEM DUE TO GENDER AND RACE.
Posted by: NIcholas | Apr 15, 2008 7:49:19 PM
Obama's platform is just a big ponzi scheme with him and his cohorts at the top, calling all the shots and getting most of the money, with the people at the bottom, way bottom. Get a clue, that's what ceding your power and money to the all powerful State is all about.
Posted by: larry | Apr 15, 2008 8:56:50 PM
The US government does not have a revenue problem it has a spending problem with the bulk of the money going to Federal workers, contractor, politicians and yes a lot of corrupt Rezko types. In fact revenue as gone up due to the tax cuts Bush has enacted. Think about it, the more money that is taken out of the private sector, the less money the public has to spend and the less money business has to hire new workers. In fact. if the Obama or Hillary gets their way and taxes go up, corporations will leave and take the jobs with them, small business will have to cut expenses and lay off people and the folks will have less to spend and business will have to cut back even more. Mean while the pockets of the Federal workers, contractor, politicians and yes corrupt Rezko types will get fatter and fatter.
Posted by: Sammy | Apr 15, 2008 9:10:40 PM
Who cares about economic??
McCain is a good guy!
Posted by: GHM | Apr 15, 2008 11:03:16 PM
The one reason I like the Fair tax idea is that those that are truly a giant leech on our system end up paying something. I know it wont fix our deficit because our elected officials cant get it right no matter what system we have.
Posted by: Mark | Apr 16, 2008 12:32:33 AM
Mc Cains plan sounds far more reasonable than Clintons and Obamas.
I am for spending for universal health care. I am for spending for social security. I am not for spending on every other project imaginable. Where does all this cash come from?
Mc Cain at least puts forth a reasonable budget. I disagree that the bush tax cuts should extend to folks making 250k per year.
Posted by: tomdavie | Apr 16, 2008 2:12:49 AM
The cost of ethanol from corn is $81 a barrel (oil equivalent), with wheat at $145 and soybeans $232. It is built on subsidy.
New technology may open the way for the use of non-edible grain stalks to make ethanol, but for now the only biofuel crop that genuinely pays its way is sugar cane ($35). Sugar is carbohydrate: ideal for fuel. Grains contain proteins made of nitrogen: useless for fuel, but vital for people.
Why are Obama and Hillary in favor of mega-billions to Agri-business in farm subsidies? They are driving the poor to starvation in Mexico in schemes to get ethanol out of subsidized corn. Poor people in Mexico can't afford to buy corn flour to make tortillas.
Some have called using food crops to create ethanol "a crime against humanity.” The economic consequences of farm subsidies are poverty and misery, because it raises the price of corn for the whole world so they can use ethanol in their green cars.
The world intelligentsia has been asleep at the wheel. While we rage over global warming, global hunger has swept in under the radar screen.
Posted by: Lance | Apr 16, 2008 6:46:49 AM
McCain wants to reduce taxes on the rich and corporations. Yeah - this will help the middle class alright - NOT
Posted by: Bob | Apr 16, 2008 8:24:52 AM
Didn`t Mac vote for the Bush/Pelosi Eco Stim Pkg that stiffed the poor who need it most, while giving a triple dip to business owners in the form of big rebates AND tax cuts AS WELL AS the stimulous of more govt rebate spending by the middle class? With the opportunity to force Bush to do something to ameliorate the eco hardship of his policies on the poor, Pelosi, Mac, Hillary and Obama did nothing,, nada, zip. Do nothing and promise anything, that`s all these politicians ever do.
Posted by: luke | Apr 16, 2008 11:05:57 AM
So McCain wants to reduce corporate taxes EVEN FURTHER THAN BUSH and he doesn't want to toudh the rich at all, but wants to buck shave programs for the poor and keep the war going.
What a deal! Sounds like McBush to me.
Posted by: Dr_Detroit | Apr 16, 2008 12:50:06 PM
Post a comment
