from Palin's RNC speech:
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/14183 Congress spends too much ... he promises more.
Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.
The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.
How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy?
Obama's record and economic plan:from a WaPo factcheck:
McCain would like to make the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent, and has proposed a few more of his own. Obama, by contrast, favors allowing the tax cuts to expire as scheduled for Americans earning more than $250,000 a year. He would raise taxes on capital gains and dividends, but has also promised tax breaks for low and middle-income Americans.
In order to substantiate its claim that large numbers of ordinary Americans will be worse off under the Democrats, the McCain camp points to an Obama proposal to raise tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Obama advisers argue that any tax increases will be offset by credits for lower-income families. They also point out that most middle and low-income families invest in the market through 401 (k) plans that are exempt from capital gains taxes.
Maya MacGuineas, a budget expert at the New America foundation, says that the McCain camp is trying to create an exaggerated impression of the number of people from low and middle-income groups who will be adversely affected by the Obama tax proposals. "It is legitimate to say that they can find a cleaning person or a waitress somewhere who will be affected, but the numbers should not be overwhelming," she said.
The claim that Obama will "enact" the largest tax increase since World War II is also overblown. The Bush tax cuts will expire automatically at the end of 2010, so it is hardly a question of "enacting" a new tax increase. According to Obama's new economics adviser, Jason Furman, the revenues raised from letting the tax cuts expire will be returned to middle and low-income tax payers in the form of tax credits to pay for health insurance, so the overall effect will be revenue neutral.
Carly Fiorina (and Palin too)is wrong to claim that Obama has proposed no tax cuts and wants to raise "every tax in the book." John McCain is on more solid ground when he claims that Americans from many different backgrounds could be affected by a rise in capital gains taxes, but he has greatly exaggerated the adverse impact.
more:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/mccain_vs_obama_on_taxes.htmlObama, from OnTheIssues:
"I'm going to go right back at McCain, because look at his tax proposals. He not only wants to continue some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, he actually wants to extend them, and he hasn't told us really how he's going to pay for them. It is irresponsible. And the irony is he said it was irresponsible. When George Bush initiated these tax cuts in 2001, McCain said, "This is shameful." He said that it offended his conscience, he said, for us to give tax breaks to the wealthy, particularly at a time of war. If you look at my approach to taxation, what have I said? I said I would cut taxes for people making $75,000 a year or less. I'd cut taxes for seniors who are making $50,000 a year or less. It is true that I would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans back to the level they were under Bill Clinton, when I don't remember rich people feeling oppressed."
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Fox_News_Sunday.htm"Everywhere you go, you meet people who are working harder for less, wages and incomes have flatlined, people are seeing escalating costs of everything from health care to gas at the pump. In some communities, they have been struggling for decades now. This has to be a priority of the next president. We have to restore a sense of fairness & balance to our economy. We've got to stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas and invest those tax breaks in companies that are investing here in the US. We have to end the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and to provide tax breaks to middle-class Americans and working Americans who need them. If you are making $75,000 a year or less, I want to give an offset to your payroll tax that will mean $1,000 extra in the pockets of ordinary Americans. Senior citizens making less than $50,000, you shouldn't have to pay income tax on your Social Security. We pay for these by closing tax loopholes and tax havens that are being manipulated."
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Dems_Texas.htm"There has to be a restoration of balance in our tax code. We are going to offset some of the payroll taxes that families who are making less than $50,000 a year get a larger break. I want to make sure that seniors making less than $50,000, that they get some relief in terms of the taxes on their Social Security. Those kinds of progressive tax steps, while closing loopholes and rolling back the Bush tax cuts to the top 1 percent, simply restores some fairness and a sense that we're all in this together. "
(Source: 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007 )
Obama said, "Domestically, our national debt and budget constrain us in ways that are going to be very far-reaching. And I think whoever is elected in 2008 is going to be cleaning up the fiscal mess that was created as a consequence of the president's tax cuts." Obama opposed repealing the estate tax: "Let's call this trillion dollar giveaway what it is--the Paris Hilton Tax Break. It's about giving billions of dollars to billionaire heirs and heiresses as a time when American taxpayers just can't afford it." Obama has proposed to "reverse some of those tax cuts that went to the wealthiest Americans." As Obama put it, "It's not as if rich people were suffering under Bill Clinton."
http://www.ontheissues.org/Improbable_Quest.htmObama also said companies creating jobs in America should be rewarded with tax cuts rather than giving tax incentives to companies that move jobs offshore. "Right now, we have a tax code that gives incentives for companies to move offshore. Instead, we must have a tax code that rewards companies that are doing the right thing by investing in American workers and investing in research and development here in the United States," said Obama. "Our government has to be looking out for these people who are working hard everyday trying to make ends meet and right now we've got a set of policies that are not reflective of that." Obama's plan to create quality jobs in Illinois will:
* Close loopholes that encourage companies to move jobs abroad.
* Reward companies that create quality jobs in America.
* Ensure fair trade by enforcing existing trade agreements and strengthening future trade agreements.
* Provide needed assistance for displaced workers.
(Source: Press Release, "Creating Jobs in America" Jun 21, 2004)
We have to stop pretending that all cuts are equivalent or that all tax increases are the same. Ending corporate subsidies is one thing; reducing health-care benefits to poor children is something else. At a time when ordinary families are feeling hit from all sides, the impulse to keep their taxes as low as possible is honorable. What is less honorable is the willingness of the rich to ride this anti-tax sentiment for their own purposes.
Nowhere has this confusion been more evident than in the debate surrounding the proposed repeal of the estate tax. As currently structured, a husband and wife can pass on $4 million without paying any estate tax. In 2009, this figure goes up to $7 million. The tax thus affects only the wealthiest one-third of 1% in 2009. Repealing the estate tax would cost $1 trillion, and it would be hard to find a tax cut that was less responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans or the long-term interests of the country.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Audacity_of_Hope.htmmore:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htmPalin on taxes:Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6
years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over
33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the
City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation
(1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a
regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she
promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
read:
http://funkybunch.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/02/1816250-palin-raised-taxes-on-food-left-city-22m-in-debtfrom Kos:
After being elected Wasilla mayor, one of Palin's first acts was to increase Wasilla's sales tax by 2% to pay for an arena and convention center for the town of 7,000 people:
At 32, Palin was elected mayor of Wasilla, a burgeoning bedroom community outside Anchorage. Though Alaskans tend to be ferociously anti-tax, she persuaded Wasilla voters to increase the local sales tax to pay for an indoor arena and convention center. The tax referendum won by 20 votes.
Raising taxes is bad enough, but Alaska is one of only 15 states that tax their residents on groceries. That's right, Middle America. Sarah Palin raised taxes on groceries.
That's not very family friendly. An article entitled, Shrinking packages, pricier foods fluster parents notes that families are even cutting back on their kids school lunches. Family incomes are shrinking. You see, food prices are up 6% this year, while household income went up an anemic 1.3 percent
When the city of Juneau decided to allocate some of its sales taxes to a bronze scuplture of a whale, Juneau Assembly member Sara Chambers put it brilliantly:
"If we can afford to pay $500,000 for a piece of art, we don't need to tax people on milk and broccoli,"
I think the same might apply to an arena for a town of 7,000 people.
read:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/2/125612/1223/369/583383from Think Progress:
During an interview with Steve Schmidt, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) senior campaign adviser, last night on CBS Evening News, host Katie Couric noted that Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) raised taxes and lobbied for earmarks — policies McCain claims he is against. Couric then asked Schmidt, “how does that square with John McCain’s philosophy?”
In response, Schmidt seemingly decided to ditch any pairing with McCain’s anti-tax philosophy and instead tried to “square” Palin with McCain and his alleged “maverick” persona, praising the fact that Palin had raised taxes because “she doesn’t adhere to a dogmatic principle”:
SCHMIDT: She raised sales taxes because that was the right thing to do for that town at that time. It shows that she doesn’t adhere to a dogmatic principle. We have to have taxes in this country.
The McCain campaign has made the claim that Obama is going to raise every Americans’ taxes a mantra over the last several months, even though that claim is false. In fact, immediately after Schmidt praised Palin for raising taxes, he attacked Obama, saying he “wants to raise everybody’s federal taxes.”
The fact is that McCain’s tax policies would not only balloon the federal deficit, but they would actually raise taxes on the middle class while saving all the benefits for the rich.
read:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/03/schmidt-palin-taxes/from CATO:
At best, Palin has been a convert on earmarks (and perhaps not a full convert). As governor of Alaska, she has requested 31 earmarks worth $197.8 million for next year, according to indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens’ website, the Los Angeles Times reported. As mayor of Wasilla, Palin regularly traveled to Washington to request earmarks. The city obtained funding for several projects, including a bus depot ($600,000) and a water and sewer project ($1.5 million), according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.
As Wasilla mayor, Palin has a decidedly mixed record on taxes and spending. She slashed her salary and cut property taxes by 40 percent because of booming sales tax revenue from new stores.
But Palin also increased the budget by spending on roads and sewers, left the town nearly $20 million in debt and raised the city sales tax by half a percent (she said the money was needed to support construction of an indoor ice rink and sports complex and a police dispatch center).
read:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/09/02/gov-sarah-palins-record-on-taxes-and-spending/from Think Progress:
During her term in office, Palin cut property taxes and other small taxes on business. But as the Anchorage Daily News points out, “She wasn’t doing this by shrinking government.” During her tenure, the budget of Wasilla (population 5,469 in 2000) “apart from capital projects and debt, rose from $3.9 million in fiscal 1996 to $5.8 million.”
Palin also successfully pushed through a sales tax increase in Wasilla, which went to fund a $15 million sports complex. However, a land dispute over the sight of the complex led to “years of legal wrangling” and cost Wasilla almost $1.7 million, “a lot more than the roughly $125,000 the city would have paid in 1998 if it had closed a deal to buy the property outright.” Wasilla is still facing budget shortfalls from the case today.
When Palin left office in 2002, Wasilla had “racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt,” or roughly $3,000 of debt per resident.
But Palin’s approach actually brings her in line with McCain, whose own “massive tax cuts” “would recklessly exacerbate the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Administration” and cause the largest deficit in 25 years.
read:
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/09/03/wasilla-in-debt/Transcript of Palin's address: http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/14183
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
