Taxable Talk

This is the second of a three-part series on the Presidential candidates. Today I take a look at what Senator John McCain proposes in his tax plan.

Here are the basics of what Senator McCain proposes (most of the following is taken from John McCain’s web site):
1. Keep Tax Rates Low. Senator McCain proposes keeping the current tax rates.
2. Phase out the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
3. Lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%.
4. Allow businesses to fully expense first year equipment and technology expenses.
5. Add a credit for businesses equal to 10% of wages that are spent on Research & Development.
6. Ban taxes on the Internet.
7. Ban new taxes on cellular phones.

John McCain also proposes to eliminate wasteful spending. Senator McCain wants to balance the budget by 2013 (conveniently right after his term in office would end).

Senator McCain’s health care plan involves eliminating the deductions for health care (mainly a business/corporate deduction) and replacing these with tax credits. For most Americans this would equate to a slight savings (based on after tax dollars).

Senator McCain wants, “a one year spending pause. Freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year and use those savings for deficit reduction.”

Senator McCain has stated on various occasions he’d like to see the inheritance tax exclusion at $5 million. He has also publicly stated that he’s for extending the Bush tax cuts.

Unlike Senator Obama’s plans (which are somewhat detailed on his web site) Senator McCain’s plans are not as detailed. Perhaps that’s because he’s proposing far fewer new programs (and, thus, a much lower need of new revenues) and is actually proposing things like cutting all earmarks.

Yet without the meat it’s difficult for anyone to do anything but give a broad critique. No one likes to be pinned down and as I mentioned Senator Obama is as guilty as Senator McCain. Still, I think it’s a worthwhile exercise to see where Senator McCain’s policies on taxes would likely lead.

First, while I’d love to see corporate tax rates fall (since corporate taxes are always passed on to consumers, cuts in corporate tax rates always benefit consumers) I don’t see that happening. Most Americans are unaware of the economic impacts of corporate taxes, and most politicians like to criticize corporations.

Second, attempting to balance the federal budget is a worthwhile goal. Yet without major cuts in multiple programs it just can’t happen. Add in a probable recession (which will likely lead to more government spending) and you have an impossible goal. Senator McCain’s head is in the sand on this issue.

The one proposal of Senator McCain’s that I hope whoever is elected implements is the vetoing of all bills with earmarks. A million here and a million there and you soon have a leak in the system, so to speak. Will Senator McCain follow through on this if he’s elected if Senator Smith puts in a $10 million earmark on the defense appropriations bill? I’m actually optimistic on this issue.

But I think all legislators need to look at fiscal discipline. That’s a goal of Senator McCain’s but I don’t see it as a goal of many in Congress.

Yet Senator McCain proposes billions in tax cuts (according to the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, it’s about $450 billion). Eliminating the AMT is a good goal, but where is the federal government going to replace that revenue? Sure, if enough federal programs are cut the revenue wouldn’t be needed but how often have you seen a federal department or program eliminated?

I don’t see many (any?) of Senator McCain’s proposals getting through an ideological Democratic Congress. That isn’t so bad—we’d have the current (flawed) system. Senator McCain also hasn’t identified any programs that he would eliminate (save earmarks). Cutting earmarks would save maybe a billion dollars, but that’s nowhere near enough money to fund his programs. Just saying that you are going to conduct a review of all programs (which will cost money, of course) and that there will magically be some that can be eliminated borders on wishful thinking.

Still, Senator McCain has some good ideas. The devil is in the details, and those are lacking today.

In part three I’ll examine the two candidates side-by-side. I’ll also note the impact that Congress will certainly have on each candidate’s goals.

Proposition 12 would issue $900 million in bonds to provide loans to California veterans to purchase homes and farms. It would cost $59 million a year to repay the debt (for thirty years).

Supporters say that the Cal-Vet Home Loan program has been a huge success; the measure was placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote in both the State Assembly and State Senate. Opponents say that the bond measure would cost the state money and the screening in the program needs to be tightened.

That’s the end of the propositions on the state ballot. Next week I’ll look at Orange County Measure J and Irvine Measures R and S.

If you’re a California resident you know that we have a dysfunctional legislature. One of the main reasons for this is that back in 2001 the Democrats and Republicans in the legislature drew up new districts. They made a deal, and made all but a couple of seats “safe.” That’s called gerrymandering, and almost every legislative district in the state is gerrymandered.

For example, my Assembly, State Senate, and Congressional seats are extremely safe Republican districts. While there’s a Democratic candidate for each office, it’s not going to matter–all the Republican candidates will win in a cakewalk. Similarly, almost every Democratic candidate will win easily. When the districts aren’t competitive you tend to get legislators who are highly partisan and don’t compromise.

Proposition 11 would change how redistricting is done in California. There would be a commission to handle redistricting for the state legislature. While this measure has almost no direct fiscal impact, eliminating the dysfunctional legislature can only be a boon to California.

Remember to vote on November 4th.

Proposition 10 would issue $5 billion in bonds. These bonds would then be used to provide $3.425 billion to aid consumers purchase high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles. Another $1.25 billion would be used for research and development of renewable, solar, and win energy. There would also be grants to cities.

Like any measure with bonds there is a cost. For this measure it’s $335 million a year. Given the current credit market it’s likely that’s an understatement of the expense.

Proponents argue that Proposition 10 would help lead California to energy independence. Proposition 10 is supported by the AQMD. Opponents, including some consumer groups and the California Federation of Teachers, argue that this measure would remove money from other programs.

No matter where you stand on this remember to vote on November 4th.

Proposition 7 has done something this election cycle that I would have thought was impossible: It is opposed by almost everyone. The opponents include the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the United Farm Workers Union, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the California Taxpayers’ Association.

What would Proposition 7 do? It would require utilities to generate 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2010 (with that percentage increasing to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025).

Proponents argue that Proposition 7 would help solve global warming, increase renewable energy use, and wouldn’t cost much to California. Opponents argue that it would cut small wind and solar companies out of the market, would dramatically increase rates for everyone, and would dramatically hurt the economy.

Remember to vote on November 4th.

Proposition 6 requires specific funding for police and law enforcement, and adds several new crimes (mainly gang-related) to the penal code. It also changes sentencing, generally tightening (lengthening) sentences, especially for gang-related offenses. It is also estimated to cost at least $500 million annually, and potentially could have a one-time cost of $1 billion.

Proponents argue that it fights gangs, and helps crime victims. Opponents argue that it spends money needlessly.

No matter how you feel make sure you vote on November 4th.