McCain proposes break in gas taxes

[Tigermike 3,673]

This should piss off dims nationwide since they despise any tax cuts.

McCain proposes break in gas taxes

By LIZ SIDOTI

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

John McCain called Tuesday for the federal government to free people from paying gasoline taxes this summer and ensure that college students can secure loans this fall, proposals aimed at stemming the public's pain now from the troubled economy.

In the longer-term, the certain Republican presidential nominee said he would double the tax exemption for dependent children and offer people the option of choosing a simpler tax system.

"We know from experience that no serious reform of the current tax code will come out of Congress, so now it is time to turn the decision over to the people," McCain said in a sweeping economic speech at Carnegie Mellon University a week before Pennsylvania's primaries.

To help people weather the downturn immediately, McCain urged Congress to institute a "gas-tax holiday" by suspending the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. He also renewed his call for the United States to stop adding to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and thus lessen to some extent the worldwide demand for oil.

Combined, he said, the two proposals would reduce gas prices, which would have a trickle-down effect, and "help to spread relief across the American economy."

Addressing the feared fallout of the ongoing credit crunch, McCain also said the Education Department should work with the country's governors to make sure that each state's guarantee agency _ nonprofits that traditionally back student loans issued by banks _ has both the means and the manpower to be the lender-of-last-resort for student loans.

Lawmakers, students and financial experts are worried that the credit crisis might make it more difficult for students and their families to find loans. Nearly two dozen lenders have dropped out of the federally backed student loan program.

Students, McCain said, "should not be denied an education because the recklessness of others has made credit too hard to obtain."

Among other proposals, McCain said he would:

_Require more affluent people _ couples making more than $160,000 _ enrolled in Medicare to pay a higher premium for their prescription drugs than less-wealthy people.

_Raise the tax exemption for each dependent child from $3,500 to $7,000.

_Offer people the option of choosing a simpler tax system with two tax rates and a standard deduction instead of sticking with the current system.

_Suspend for one year all increases in discretionary spending for agencies other than those that cover the military and veterans while launching an expansive review of the effectiveness of federal programs.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said McCain's proposals offer "no change from George Bush's failed policies by going full speed ahead with fiscally irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans," and amount to "a gift basket of new tax cuts for corporate America at a time when some CEOs are making more in a day than some workers make in a year."

The four-term Arizona senator packaged the fresh proposals with long-standing positions in a wide-ranging economic speech on Tax Day in which he faulted not only Democrats but also fellow Republicans for failing to practice prudent spending and fix pricey entitlement programs.

"In so many ways, we need to make a clean break from the worst excesses of both political parties," McCain said, adding "somewhere along the way, too many Republicans in Congress became indistinguishable from the big-spending Democrats they used to oppose."

He also argued that Democratic rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton would impose the single largest tax increase since World War II by allowing tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 _ and that McCain voted against but now wants to make permanent _ to expire.

"Both promise big 'change.' And a trillion dollars in new taxes over the next decade would certainly fit that description," McCain said. Playing on the title of an Obama book, McCain added: "All these tax increases are the fine print under the slogan of 'hope:' They're going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars per year _ and they have the audacity to hope you don't mind."

The speech was part of McCain's ongoing effort to counter the notion _ fueled by his own previous comments _ that he's not as strong on the economy as he is on other issues. He also sought to fend off criticism from Democrats, including Obama and Clinton, that his small-government, free-market stances don't mesh with people feeling the pinch _ particularly those hurting now.

He made his remarks a day after he said he believes the country has already entered a recession, a label the Bush administration has resisted even as a credit crisis, a housing slump, soaring energy costs and rising layoffs combined to soften the economy.

The speech also came the same morning the Labor Department reported another worrisome sign for the economy: Inflation at the wholesale level soared in March at nearly triple the rate that had been expected as the costs of energy and food both climbed rapidly. Oil prices hit a new high, rising over $112 a barrel for the first time.

link

[RunInRed 18,172]

Don't a lot of the gas taxes go for state/local infrastructure projects? From a federal stand point, what projects does he propose to end/not take on or will we just continue to deficit spend? What did he say about releasing some of the national oil reserves? Was there anything in here about investing in alternative energy or is this just a band-aid?

Any Problem

Republican Answer: Tax Cut

:::sigh:::

[channonc 466]

Talk about a real hit to the Highway Trust Fund with this one. The US is already way behind on keeping up with critical infrastructure projects, and currently the gas tax is one of the major ways of funding these endeavors. This is a horrible idea unless he is proposing some other way of funding the HTF.

[TitanTiger 21,147]

_Require more affluent people _ couples making more than $160,000 _ enrolled in Medicare to pay a higher premium for their prescription drugs than less-wealthy people.

I'd be in favor of this in particular. The biggest thing I couldn't understand about that Rx Plan Bush pushed through was that it there was no consideration for income level. Bill Gates could have his Rx's covered under this plan. Do the rest of us really need to be paying for a billionaire prescriptions?

[AURaptor 1,137]

Don't a lot of the gas taxes go for state/local infrastructure projects? From a federal stand point, what projects does he propose to end/not take on or will we just continue to deficit spend? What did he say about releasing some of the national oil reserves? Was there anything in here about investing in alternative energy or is this just a band-aid?

Any Problem

Republican Answer: Tax Cut

:::sigh:::

Well, the answer to most any problem w/ the Federal Government IS tax cuts, doofus. As for "investing" in alternative energy, how is that the function of the Federal Government ? It isn't. That's for the market to determine. When it becomes profitable for companies to do so, they'll invest for their own interest. I've never understood this language folks use about the Gov. " investing " in anything. It's a total crock.

[RunInRed 18,172]

Don't a lot of the gas taxes go for state/local infrastructure projects? From a federal stand point, what projects does he propose to end/not take on or will we just continue to deficit spend? What did he say about releasing some of the national oil reserves? Was there anything in here about investing in alternative energy or is this just a band-aid?

Any Problem

Republican Answer: Tax Cut

:::sigh:::

Well, the answer to most any problem w/ the Federal Government IS tax cuts, doofus. As for "investing" in alternative energy, how is that the function of the Federal Government ? It isn't. That's for the market to determine. When it becomes profitable for companies to do so, they'll invest for their own interest. I've never understood this language folks use about the Gov. " investing " in anything. It's a total crock.

I assume you want the private sector to build roads, schools, run the military, etc.

[Auburn85 436]

Don't a lot of the gas taxes go for state/local infrastructure projects? From a federal stand point, what projects does he propose to end/not take on or will we just continue to deficit spend? What did he say about releasing some of the national oil reserves? Was there anything in here about investing in alternative energy or is this just a band-aid?

Any Problem

Republican Answer: Tax Cut

:::sigh:::

Well, the answer to most any problem w/ the Federal Government IS tax cuts, doofus. As for "investing" in alternative energy, how is that the function of the Federal Government ? It isn't. That's for the market to determine. When it becomes profitable for companies to do so, they'll invest for their own interest. I've never understood this language folks use about the Gov. " investing " in anything. It's a total crock.

I assume you want the private sector to build roads, schools, run the military, etc.

well to cut costs, the gubmint actually does sometimes use the private sector to pave the roads rather than paying county or state workers.

the gubmint should at least look at how private schools are ran. they should compare the efficiency of private schools to public schools.

[RunInRed 18,172]

Don't a lot of the gas taxes go for state/local infrastructure projects? From a federal stand point, what projects does he propose to end/not take on or will we just continue to deficit spend? What did he say about releasing some of the national oil reserves? Was there anything in here about investing in alternative energy or is this just a band-aid?

Any Problem

Republican Answer: Tax Cut

:::sigh:::

Well, the answer to most any problem w/ the Federal Government IS tax cuts, doofus. As for "investing" in alternative energy, how is that the function of the Federal Government ? It isn't. That's for the market to determine. When it becomes profitable for companies to do so, they'll invest for their own interest. I've never understood this language folks use about the Gov. " investing " in anything. It's a total crock.

I assume you want the private sector to build roads, schools, run the military, etc.

well to cut costs, the gubmint actually does sometimes use the private sector to pave the roads rather than paying county or state workers.

the gubmint should at least look at how private schools are ran. they should compare the efficiency of private schools to public schools.

umm yeah..but who pays those private workers? who pays to send kids to private schools?

[Auburn85 436]

Don't a lot of the gas taxes go for state/local infrastructure projects? From a federal stand point, what projects does he propose to end/not take on or will we just continue to deficit spend? What did he say about releasing some of the national oil reserves? Was there anything in here about investing in alternative energy or is this just a band-aid?

Any Problem

Republican Answer: Tax Cut

:::sigh:::

Well, the answer to most any problem w/ the Federal Government IS tax cuts, doofus. As for "investing" in alternative energy, how is that the function of the Federal Government ? It isn't. That's for the market to determine. When it becomes profitable for companies to do so, they'll invest for their own interest. I've never understood this language folks use about the Gov. " investing " in anything. It's a total crock.

I assume you want the private sector to build roads, schools, run the military, etc.

well to cut costs, the gubmint actually does sometimes use the private sector to pave the roads rather than paying county or state workers.

the gubmint should at least look at how private schools are ran. they should compare the efficiency of private schools to public schools.

umm yeah..but who pays those private workers? who pays to send kids to private schools?

as far as who pays to send kids to private school... that would be parents who can afford to send or those who work their tails off to send their kids to a private school.

it isn't enough that a private school parent has to already pay taxes to send a kid to a government school, but they have to dig deeper into their income to send a kid to private school. so imo, private school parents pay double for schooling their kids. at the same time, it's one less kid in the government school system with the parents still paying income tax, property tax, and whatever taxes that may be partially or fully used for government education.

[channonc 466]

Don't a lot of the gas taxes go for state/local infrastructure projects? From a federal stand point, what projects does he propose to end/not take on or will we just continue to deficit spend? What did he say about releasing some of the national oil reserves? Was there anything in here about investing in alternative energy or is this just a band-aid?

Any Problem

Republican Answer: Tax Cut

:::sigh:::

Well, the answer to most any problem w/ the Federal Government IS tax cuts, doofus. As for "investing" in alternative energy, how is that the function of the Federal Government ? It isn't. That's for the market to determine. When it becomes profitable for companies to do so, they'll invest for their own interest. I've never understood this language folks use about the Gov. " investing " in anything. It's a total crock.

I assume you want the private sector to build roads, schools, run the military, etc.

well to cut costs, the gubmint actually does sometimes use the private sector to pave the roads rather than paying county or state workers.

Most states contract their roadwork with private companies. Just b/c the truck says "____ DOT" doesn't mean they are "state/county" workers.

I am all for user fees to pay for infrastructure needs, however, until that change is made the gas tax is all we have to pay for that infrastructure. Roads allow goods and people to move, which in turn allows for commerce.

[RunInRed 18,172]

McCain's speech was political pandering at best. The elimination of the gas tax has been tried before and it's not going to happen because the state and local governments need the money. As pointed out above it's simply a dumb idea.

His constant talk about spending restraints is refreshing except for the fact he made no mention of the elephant on the table - the $300M+/day we are spending in Iraq. He also made no comment or commitment to balance the budget - is he backing away from this "concept?"

Sounds to me like you can sum up his candidacy in 3 positions:

1) Make the Bush tax cuts permanent (ironic in itself since he has "flip-flopped" on this issue twice - he wouldn't be doing some political pandering now would he? Nah, never.)

2) Stay the course in Iraq

3) Cut "pork barrell" projects, whatever that means (he can start with the bridge to nowhere)

[channonc 466]

RIR- the gas tax issue brings up a larger debate for me... the major decline of this country's infrastructure. China is in the process of building 97 new airports and has invested over $200 billion on a new high speed rail system. Statistics show they have invested more in the past 5 years on their infrastructure needs then the US has in the past 50 years.

[RunInRed 18,172]

RIR- the gas tax issue brings up a larger debate for me... the major decline of this country's infrastructure. China is in the process of building 97 new airports and has invested over $200 billion on a new high speed rail system. Statistics show they have invested more in the past 5 years on their infrastructure needs then the US has in the past 50 years.

Oh we definitely have not made the investments we need to. That's why you have bridges collasping, multi hour commutes in big cities, inadequate mass transit, etc.

But everything is going to be ok because John McCain thinks the answer lies in cutting the gas tax. Does this guy get it at all?

[TitanTiger 21,147]

RIR- the gas tax issue brings up a larger debate for me... the major decline of this country's infrastructure. China is in the process of building 97 new airports and has invested over $200 billion on a new high speed rail system. Statistics show they have invested more in the past 5 years on their infrastructure needs then the US has in the past 50 years.

Then again, if we could take advantage of slave labor and confiscate the majority of what people make for government projects, I bet we could have a real whizz-bang infrastructure that would beat the pants off anything in the world.

Of course, there's that whole totalitarian thing to implement to get there...

[Tigermike 3,673]

RIR- the gas tax issue brings up a larger debate for me... the major decline of this country's infrastructure. China is in the process of building 97 new airports and has invested over $200 billion on a new high speed rail system. Statistics show they have invested more in the past 5 years on their infrastructure needs then the US has in the past 50 years.

Then again, if we could take advantage of slave labor and confiscate the majority of what people make for government projects, I bet we could have a real whizz-bang infrastructure that would beat the pants off anything in the world.

Of course, there's that whole totalitarian thing to implement to get there...

Now you are getting into the meat of Obamas plans.

[channonc 466]

RIR- the gas tax issue brings up a larger debate for me... the major decline of this country's infrastructure. China is in the process of building 97 new airports and has invested over $200 billion on a new high speed rail system. Statistics show they have invested more in the past 5 years on their infrastructure needs then the US has in the past 50 years.

Then again, if we could take advantage of slave labor and confiscate the majority of what people make for government projects, I bet we could have a real whizz-bang infrastructure that would beat the pants off anything in the world.

Of course, there's that whole totalitarian thing to implement to get there...

So how do you purpose to solve the problem of the increasing decline of our infrastructure? I am all for public-private partnerships, but I think infrastructure is important to most everything we do-- how we get to work, how we get our food, how our goods get from the port to our neighborhood stores... without that stuff, we would not have a successful economy.

[RunInRed 18,172]

They don't have an answer other than "tax cuts" and investment from a private sector - who is not willing to make one, primarily because the consumers are not willing to pay for it.

You think you are taxed now? Imagine paying tolls to drive down any road, cross every bridge, travel any interstate. This cost, would also be reflected in goods and services as well. This concept of "every man for himself" society that many on the far right advocate for is just as looney as the socialist concept on the far left.

[TitanTiger 21,147]

RIR- the gas tax issue brings up a larger debate for me... the major decline of this country's infrastructure. China is in the process of building 97 new airports and has invested over $200 billion on a new high speed rail system. Statistics show they have invested more in the past 5 years on their infrastructure needs then the US has in the past 50 years.

Then again, if we could take advantage of slave labor and confiscate the majority of what people make for government projects, I bet we could have a real whizz-bang infrastructure that would beat the pants off anything in the world.

Of course, there's that whole totalitarian thing to implement to get there...

So how do you purpose to solve the problem of the increasing decline of our infrastructure? I am all for public-private partnerships, but I think infrastructure is important to most everything we do-- how we get to work, how we get our food, how our goods get from the port to our neighborhood stores... without that stuff, we would not have a successful economy.

I'm not proposing getting rid of the gas tax. I actually think it's one of the fairest taxes around...those who drive on the roads the most fund the building and maintenance of the roads the most. I'm just saying that comparisons to China's "investment" in infrastructure aren't exactly apt ones given the vast differences in how such things can be accomplished in the respective countries. The statistics aren't even valid given those differences.

[RunInRed 18,172]

RIR- the gas tax issue brings up a larger debate for me... the major decline of this country's infrastructure. China is in the process of building 97 new airports and has invested over $200 billion on a new high speed rail system. Statistics show they have invested more in the past 5 years on their infrastructure needs then the US has in the past 50 years.

Then again, if we could take advantage of slave labor and confiscate the majority of what people make for government projects, I bet we could have a real whizz-bang infrastructure that would beat the pants off anything in the world.

Of course, there's that whole totalitarian thing to implement to get there...

So how do you purpose to solve the problem of the increasing decline of our infrastructure? I am all for public-private partnerships, but I think infrastructure is important to most everything we do-- how we get to work, how we get our food, how our goods get from the port to our neighborhood stores... without that stuff, we would not have a successful economy.

I'm not proposing getting rid of the gas tax. I actually think it's one of the fairest taxes around...those who drive on the roads the most fund the building and maintenance of the roads the most. I'm just saying that comparisons to China's "investment" in infrastructure aren't exactly apt ones given the vast differences in how such things can be accomplished in the respective countries. The statistics aren't even valid given those differences.

So Titan, would you agree that McCain's biggest economic proposal so far was a complete joke?

[TitanTiger 21,147]

RIR- the gas tax issue brings up a larger debate for me... the major decline of this country's infrastructure. China is in the process of building 97 new airports and has invested over $200 billion on a new high speed rail system. Statistics show they have invested more in the past 5 years on their infrastructure needs then the US has in the past 50 years.

Then again, if we could take advantage of slave labor and confiscate the majority of what people make for government projects, I bet we could have a real whizz-bang infrastructure that would beat the pants off anything in the world.

Of course, there's that whole totalitarian thing to implement to get there...

So how do you purpose to solve the problem of the increasing decline of our infrastructure? I am all for public-private partnerships, but I think infrastructure is important to most everything we do-- how we get to work, how we get our food, how our goods get from the port to our neighborhood stores... without that stuff, we would not have a successful economy.

I'm not proposing getting rid of the gas tax. I actually think it's one of the fairest taxes around...those who drive on the roads the most fund the building and maintenance of the roads the most. I'm just saying that comparisons to China's "investment" in infrastructure aren't exactly apt ones given the vast differences in how such things can be accomplished in the respective countries. The statistics aren't even valid given those differences.

So Titan, would you agree that McCain's biggest economic proposal so far was a complete joke?

No more so than Obama's non-binding proposal for shareholders to have a formalized process to express their non-binding dissatisfaction with CEO pay.

[RunInRed 18,172]

No more so than Obama's non-binding proposal for shareholders to have a formalized process to express their non-binding dissatisfaction with CEO pay.

Of course, the irony there is major Republicans including McCain are beginning to beat this drum as well. Did you hear McCain's comments about outrageous CEO pay w/o non performance at the AP conference the other day? Or Fox News' Bill O'Reilly's landblasting for the shareholders to out GE's head man for the same reason. You laugh, but just watch, Obama was way out in front of this issue while McCain is stuck playing follow the leader and putting forth his flip-flop economic ideas that are based off of Repubican poll driven triangulations.

------------------------

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain has spoken out about lavish pay packages for corporate chiefs, but his top adviser said on Monday the senator wants to shine a light on the issue and is not offering specific new proposals to rein it in.

"Job No. 1 of the president is to use the bully pulpit to shine a light on behavior that is less-than-exemplary," McCain's top economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin told Reuters in a telephone interview.

"That's certainly the case here," Holtz-Eakin said, referring to the issue of huge chief executive officer pay packages.

Holtz-Eakin said McCain would like to see shareholders and boards of directors take the initiative to ensure that pay packages for CEOs are reasonable and in line with performance. "We'll see what the response is," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...727879320080407

[RunInRed 18,172]

Not sure if any one else caught this but last night during the debate this issue was raised. Both candidates seemed to be open to the idea of freezing the gas tax - agreeing with McCain ... however, the difference was that they were also in favor of going after wind fall profits of oil companies to replace the loss revenue used for infrastructure investment.

Would those of you who favor McCain's gas tax freeze be open to this idea?

[Tigermike 3,673]

Of course, the irony there is bla, bla, bla, bla

No the irony here is Obama and dems everywhere have been decrying the Bush cuts for years but none of them have chose to not accept the tax cuts. rr, have you sent in the money? If not you are a hypocrite of the highest order.

[RunInRed 18,172]

Of course, the irony there is bla, bla, bla, bla

No the irony here is Obama and dems everywhere have been decrying the Bush cuts for years but none of them have chose to not accept the tax cuts. rr, have you sent in the money? If not you are a hypocrite of the highest order.

What? You are becoming as random as arnoldo.

Why would I send in more money to fund a foreign policy I disagree with and to provide tax cuts to the wealthiest 1%?

[GoAU 1,690]

_Require more affluent people _ couples making more than $160,000 _ enrolled in Medicare to pay a higher premium for their prescription drugs than less-wealthy people.

I'd be in favor of this in particular. The biggest thing I couldn't understand about that Rx Plan Bush pushed through was that it there was no consideration for income level. Bill Gates could have his Rx's covered under this plan. Do the rest of us really need to be paying for a billionaire prescriptions?

Yeah, this makes sense - I should pay more for perscription drugs because I busted my arse putting myself through college, continued busting my tail end through my service in the Army and my civillain career and as a result should be rewarded by having to pay more for the same drugs as everyone else. I can't stand success related penalties (paying more due to income level).