Lies, Damn Lies and McCain Campaign Statements

The McCain campaign is so full of lies that even Republicans are starting to complain. See this article in today's New York Times.

The policy lies bother me the most; I think the most outrageous are in regards to tax policy, which I've already written about. McCain claims that Obama plans "painful tax increases on working families." In fact, the detailed and well-sourced comparisons at the non-partisan Tax Policy Center show otherwise. Their analysis states:

The two candidates’ tax plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain’s tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those tax cuts would be small as a share of after-tax income. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise significantly.

Sarah Palin's assertions about her opposition to earmarks really get to me, too. She has said, "I told Congress, thanks, but no thanks for that 'Bridge to Nowhere' in Alaska. If we wanted that bridge, we'd build it ourselves." This is a flat-out lie. As a candidate for governor, Ms. Palin supported the project. She told the Ankorage Daily News in 2006 that she would like to see it and other projects built sooner rather than later, "while out Congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." After the bridge drew national ridicule, making it harder to secure more federal money to meet rising cost projections, she abandoned it, citing the financial shortfall. Alaska was able to keep the federal money and direct it to other projects.

Wake up, America!

Update: Go watch the ABC news interview with Sarah Palin. Could she possibly be less prepared to be vice president?

Economic Plans: What are the candidates really proposing?

This week's New York Times Sunday Magazine contains an excellent article on Barack Obama's economic philosophy and plans, by David Leonhardt. It refers to a study of the Obama and McCain tax proposals by the Tax Policy Center (TPC), a non-partisan joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute. The Times article is a great read, and I recommend it; the Tax Policy Center's study provides more detail (in particular, breakdowns of tax impact by quintiles, which I find far more useful than the usually-stated means).

Some interesting factoids:

The tax rates for individuals earning $5m/year (in current, inflation-adjusted dollars) have been:

• 1980: %60
• 1988 (end of the Reagan presidency): %35
• 1990s (Clinton era): %40
• current (GW Bush): %34

Both Obama and McCain would cut taxes for bottom 80% of population (those earning $118,000 or less). McCain's cuts would average $200/year for this group; Obama's would average $900. But the quintiles for Obama's plan are far more interesting than the single number:

Quintile	Top Income for Quintile	$ Change in Federal Tax Paid	Average Federal Tax Rate
20%	$19,740	-$617	-0.4%
40%	$38,980	-$950	8.0%
60%	$69,490	-$1,035	15.4%
80%	$117,535	-$757	18.9%
100%	Top	+$6,770	27.2%

The detail for the top 20% is interesting, too.

Percentile	Top Income for Quintile	$ Change in Federal Tax Paid	Average Federal Tax Rate
80-90	$169,480	-$442	21.7%
90-95	$237,040	+$448	23.3%
95-99	$619,561	+5,686	26.5%
Top 1 Percent	$2,832,449	+114,238	34.1%
Top 0.1 Percent	Top	+650,938	37.5%

Obama's plan is clearly targeted at cutting taxes for middle-income Americans, while fairly dramatically raising taxes on the very wealthiest Americans (but not back to even the top rates of the Clinton administration).

McCain's plan cuts taxes for everyone, including the wealthiest. Not surprisingly, this is reflected in projected increases in the national debt, as described in the TPC's summary:

Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. These projections assume the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire in 2010 and that the Alternative Minimum Tax is fully effective.

So who's the fiscal conservative here?