McCain Would Not Vote For Bush Tax Cuts



McCain would not change his vote against the Bush tax cuts if he did it all over again: (h/t Patrick Ruffini)

you don’t mind, I want to ask you a domestic policy question, a
straight talk question, if you will. In retrospect, was it a mistake
for you to vote against the Bush tax cuts?

No, because I had significant tax cuts, and there was restraint of
spending included in my proposal. I saw no restraint in spending. We
presided over the greatest increase in the size of government since the
Great Society. Spending went completely out of control. It’s still out
of control. Wasteful earmark spending is a disgrace, and it caused us
to alienate our Republican base.

Yes, we understand you wanted a decrease in spending but there is no way to justify denying tax cuts which helped our economy through some very troubling times (9/11) just because you didn’t get your way.



Wordsmith reminds me of even more reasons McCain is dangerous.

The degree to which McCain has abandoned contemporary conservatism
is reflected in the legislative program he has championed since Bush
took office. Most notably, of course, he shepherded campaign finance
reform–an effort that put him in close cooperation with Democrats in
Congress. McCain also collaborated with liberal Democrats John Edwards
and Ted Kennedy on a patients’ bill of rights; with Charles Schumer on
more widespread sale of generic prescription drugs; with Ernest
Hollings to put federal employees in charge of airport security–all of
which set him against fierce business lobbying. And he teamed up with
Evan Bayh to promote AmeriCorps, an effort Bush later co-opted with his
own smaller AmeriCorps boost.

But perhaps most amazing has been McCain’s willingness to take
stands even many Democrats are afraid of. He voted against Bush’s tax
cut, the centerpiece of the new president’s agenda. Along with John
Kerry, he sponsored legislation to raise automobile emissions
standards, and he paired with Joe Lieberman to try to force Bush to
reduce greenhouse gases in compliance with the Kyoto accord. Also with
Lieberman, McCain has proposed forcing people who buy firearms at
gun shows to undergo background checks–closing the “gun-show
loophole”–even as most Democrats shy away from any form of gun control.

He has infuriated the gambling industry by proposing to ban wagering on
college sports. And along with Carl Levin, he has co-sponsored a bill
to force companies that deduct executive stock options from their taxes
to disclose the cost on their financial statements–another effort few
Democrats have been willing to join.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’ve gotten over “the gang of 14” anger I felt at the time, and have softened on McCain during this campaign season; but, man….this really hits him hard.

He is a bad man. There is very little good about him today. I don’t understand why anyone supports him besides feeling guilty about not voting for a Vietnam hero. In particular, he is very cagey about the amnesty, almost appearing as a nut case just to be hard to pin down.

wordsmith – I just skimmed that article from Patrick Ruffini, but my take was that John McCain seems like a pro-life Joe Lieberman. In other words, he is a Democrat who is pro-life and supports the war effort.

Though, for all the talk that John McCain supports the war effort and is strong on the war effort, etc, I only recall his stance on “torture” and calling for more troops. I don’t recall him presenting anything regarding strategy of those “more troops”, ie COIN. Maybe he did say what he wanted to do with those “more troops”, but I don’t recall anyone coming up with the COIN strategy that President Bush eventually put GEN Petraeus in charge of executing.

Anyway, from his disdain for “evangelicals/Christian right” going back to 2000, McCain-Feingold, Gang of 14, his adamant support/pushing of Amnesty & calling anyone who disagreed with it racist or nativist or unAmerican or somesuch and his stance on “torture”, (not to mention the fact he is a media whore and revels in getting attention for criticizing his own Party and Party leaders), he lost me long ago. He will not get my vote. I don’t trust the man to stand up to the mass media, to stand up to the Democrats, let alone to stand up to our enemies.

Stopping tax cuts during good times is basic economic strategy. Here is why. When the government lowers taxes, it increases the money supply which stimulates the economy. This in turn can cause increased inflation (in this case the money was used to buy real estate or in my case to pay for increased rent that sucked the difference from what I would have paid and what I did pay). Now if inflation did hit, the feds would have raised interest rates to put the brakes on while the government was still trying to stimulate the economy. The only thing the government would have done was just handed the money to the banks that were part of the Feneral reserve which then would have been used to fund more bad home loans (which is what they were doing with the money they did get).

Automobile emission standards are actually welcomed in the automobile industry. Why? Because it’s levels the R&D playing field. The domestic automobile companies can increase R&D and raise car prices or cut R&D and lower car prices. With the law, everyone would have to increase R&D spending at the same time. This is the only way for the domestic companies to beat the foreign companies in R&D. The only other alternative is to beat the foreign companies on price, which will never happen in any profitable way.

Without background checks, a guy could sell a firearm to a crazy person or some gang member. Background checks happen everytime you get a job, get a drivers license, go to a university, vote, get a passport,apply for a loan (even to buy the firearm), or pay with a check or credit card. Getting carded when buying booze is a background check. Sometime they are called identification checks, but identification checks are still a type of background check.

It was lax private security that caused every domestic hostage crises on an aircraft to the point where the movie Airplane (with the tag line “What’s slower than a speeding bullet, and able to hit tall buildings at a single bound?”) made fun of it back in 1980. Federalizing the screeners might not help, because it would be the same screeners but different boss, but that’s basically the only stick the government has to keep security tight (that or shutting down the airports).

Corruption follows betting. It generally happens in the lower ranks of sports but it could be happening in college as well. Some borderline student with no hope of going pro would be a good candidate for corruption. There are enough congress members that are sports nuts that want to keep sports corruption free (hence all the talk about steroids in Congress), that I’m not surprised when such talk arises.

Transparency laws have been supported by Bush and are always supported by the stock holders. If there are stock options, thre are stock holders. They are the true owners of the companies. The way the system works though is the stock holders can elect board members, but they can’t tell the board members what to do. Those board members can turn around and fleece the company. The only options of the stock holders without any law is to sell or to sue. When they have to sue they have to prove wrong doing. In order for there to be declared wrong doing, there has to be a law that was broken. Stock holder have to get congress to pass transparency laws to protect the stock holders when they sue. Otherwise the company could just say it was bad business or unethical but not illegal and there would be nothing the stock holder (which actually own the company) could do.

Automobile emission standards are actually welcomed in the automobile industry.


But coming from a leading Republican, the McCain bill was a setback for the auto industry, which has lobbied to allow the Bush administration, not Congress, to decide what action to take on fuel economy standards and has resisted any big increase of current requirements.

As far as tax cuts, we were not in good times and had just gone through 9/11. Those tax cuts helped propel our economy after 9/11 rather then destroy it. There are way too many taxes on the people of this country and if your trying to sell the fact that tax cuts are not always good then your blowing crapola.

Anyway you spin it Greg, McCain is way too liberal. If that’s what you like then more power to ya. Myself, I do not support any of those items you listed except for the background checks on guns (it was bolded by Ruffini).

While I will hold my nose and pull the lever for him if he is running against Hillary or Obama, I won’t like it tho.

The quote about the automobile industry came from a CEO regarding R&D research into auto safety. It’s something I saw once years ago and remembered. The auto industry would do R&D only if they were forced to do it is still the norm. This will only hurt them as Honda and Toyota are starting to outsell them.

I agree that lower taxes are good to jump start an economy, but a bad idea to keep it going, because prolonged low taxes increases inflation which eats up any gains a person gets.

To me, every senator is a liberal wimp when it comes to fiscal matters. Right now, if Congress was to end social security, medicare, welfare and earmarks/pork/subsidies, the U.S. would be running a $79 billion surplus at least this year. Next year it will probably be lower. The amount people pay now in medicare, social security and unemployment would be switched over to the general fund. An increase in diplomatic relations according to Gates would bring it down to $35 billion surplus. This still doesn’t protect the U.S. from its dieing infrastructure or even tackle the national debt. Things like the war on drugs, homeland security, NASA all have to be cut to pay for just the infrastucture mess. Still more cuts are needed to pay for pay raises, major disasters and the national debt. Something like the federal pension for federal program would have to be seized and discontinued while the wars in Iraq and Afganistan would have to come out of the $450 billion military budget and not extra money. All of that slashing would make the federal government solvent and preventing an unmanageable $107+ trillion debt ($12 trillion in social security, $10 trillion present debt, $52 trillion medicare debt, $33 trillion in future debt if Congress doesn’t cut programs or increase taxes and the plus would be pension insurance debt and unforeseen debt) 40 years from now. The money that would have gone to the national debt would be used to offset bad economic times, major disaster and pay for future pay hikes. That kind of slash and burn would never happen. Those in Congress will be dead when that massive debt wave hits and they know it so they don’t care.

When Congress says there is a surplus in Social Security and Medicare, they are only technically correct. The federal government has taken and spent all that money so Congress has to pay that money back or just end the program and leave people without their money. The amount of debt that would be created by social security and medicare keeps changing because it’s based on the idea that payouts and inflation would stay the same. An increase in inflation would make things worse (creating higher payouts), while cuts would make things better.

I am perpetually amused by Conservatives as they cotinue to promulgate their philosophy of a governmental “free lunch”.

Conservatives continually want to extend the reach of government, adding departments and intrusions into our daily lives, launching costly foreign wars that are so incompetently managed that the cleanup costs $ trillions and creating a federal nanny state that seeks to set the government as the final arbitrator of all family decisions.

Yet, when it comes to paying for the government that Conservatives want, and create when they are in power, they pretend that government is free, and put the cost on the “credit card”.

Conservatives: George W. Bush delivered the government you wanted: As has every Republican president since WW II. Talk about “shrinking government” is nothing more than obligatory campaign speeches, which everyone knows that no Republican will ever actually put into practice.

Democrats, for their part, are no better than Republicans (their “nanny” just isn’t named James Dobson) in terms of spending (and no worse either, no matter what FoxNews declares). However they do appear to believe that, if you want a big government, you should at least be honest enough with the American people to tell them they will have to pay for it.

Republicans make a virtue out of lying to the public and pretending that all government is “free”.