Tax Cuts or Government Spending? Here's The Answer...

Time and again as I keep my eye on the political scene, Republicans are touting tax cuts as the answer to just about everything ailing our nation. As they deride the Democrats for proposing a 'stimulus' package with government spending to address our economic troubles, the Republicans who call themselves "Conservatives" (read: conserve my money for me), keep saying that tax cuts will fix this.

Tax cuts will not fix this. Republicans keep saying that tax cuts will pump more money into our economy and therefore create jobs. They use buzzwords and evocative language like "… and the taxpayers keep more of their money…". I say that's a fallacy. Everyone hates paying taxes and of course tax cuts will allow people to keep more of their money, but it won't significantly stimulate the economy.

Tax cuts do not directly create jobs

If you're in the top 5% of income earners in this country, chances are you're making enough money to cover all of your living expenses and discretionary spending, so you're probably socking the rest of your earnings away for retirement and other things. If you fall into this category and got a few extra thousand dollars in tax cuts, will you create jobs with that? Will you even spend it? I believe the answer to that is a resounding - NO. People on the upper end of the income spectrum, who by the way have been the beneficiaries of the Bush wealth re-distribution policies of the last 8 years, have enough money to live on and will simply take this extra money and continue to sock it away.

If you're somewhat lower on the income scale and you received some extra money in the form of tax cuts, will you create new jobs with that? Well, let me re-phrase the question… will you create new jobs by paying your mortgage, electric, & telephone bills?

I believe that the vast majority of Americans fall into one of two categories when it comes to tax cuts. Either you don't need the extra money and will probably sock it away, or you've had trouble paying your bills and will probably do so with any extra tax cut money you receive. Either way, you're not going to be creating millions of jobs.

And that's the problem

Pumping money in to the economy in the form of tax cuts does not directly create jobs. It's effect on the economy are dependent on that 'trickle-down' theory to eventually create a scarce amount of jobs, if any at all. Meanwhile, implementing tax cuts DOES directly HURT the economy by ballooning the deficit and bloating the debt.

The question we must ask ourselves is this - Does the damage that tax cuts have on the economy outweigh the benefits that tax cuts will affect the economy? The answer to that is once again, a resounding - NO. After 8 years of Clintonomics this country was in the best economic health ever, with a strong surplus and paying down the national debt. After 8 years of Bush's revitalization of Reaganomics (call it 'trickle-down', 'supply-side', or anything you want), our country faces the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. I don't need to tell you how bad the problem is - you hear it every day in the news.

Stimulate Me!

What WILL directly create new jobs is government spending. In fact it's been government spending that's kept this country afloat all along. Think about it. What brought us out of the Great Depression? The right-wingers will immediately shout out - "World War II"! And I agree - WWII did bring us out of the economic turmoil of the 20's & early 30's. But what was WWII? It was a massive government spending program. Let's take that a step further - isn't our military basically a government spending program of sorts?

So, let's recap. Our politicians, beholden to the military-industrial-complex, initiate conflict and start wars so that they can justify government spending to create jobs and keep our economy moving. They sell it with fear so they're really tickled-pink over 911 (although they won't admit it). And for the past 7 years, they've been bleeding us red to the point of economic catastrophe. Couple that military spending with the Bush tax cuts and deregulation, and you can easily understand why things are so bad.

Through all the military spending, tax cuts, and deregulation obviously a lot of people got rich (or richer) as the national debt piled up. But at the same time, the vast majority of Americans did NOT benefit from Bush's Republican/Conservative/Neo-con policies. In fact, the vast majority of Americans were severely harmed as Bush made his "tough choices" to keep the deficit and debt from bloating even further. Today, more and more Americans, who weren't previously harmed from Bush's "tough choices" are finding themselves out of work as the layoffs pile up.

Can Obama bring us out of this?

One of the elementary problems with military spending is that it doesn't result in infrastructure. When you manufacture a weapon, or pay Halliburton to do a soldier's laundry, you have nothing to show for it when it's over. All the while you still have a laborer in Pennsylvania collecting unemployment, food stamps, and/or welfare. On the other hand, if you built a bridge you'd put hundreds of people to work (who'll then pay taxes and spending money), AND further stimulate the economy with all the materials you'd have to buy. When IT'S over, you'll have a bridge. Perhaps motorists can drive over that bridge instead of using much more gas to get to another bridge 5 miles down the road. Or, perhaps you'll set up a toll and collect fees. Either way, you have a bridge to show for your efforts after putting hundreds (possibly thousands) of people to work.

Infrastructure spending is definitely the way to go, and Obama understands this. The problem is he's having trouble selling it because the Republicans have bigger mouths and keep insisting on tax cuts. That's what makes THEIR constituents happy. That's what got THEM elected. After all... the ignorant, right-wing, sheeple who listen to Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity don't care about a bridge in Pennsylvania. All they care about is paying less taxes. That's why they're Republicans, that's why they controlled our government for the past 8 years, and that's why we're in the debacle we're in now.

Obama and the Democrats are going to turn this ship around. You can clearly see the emphasis on diplomacy & peace instead of conflict & war. You can clearly see the emphasis on taking care of Americans instead of killing foreigners. You can clearly see the emphasis on building our infrastructure, lessening our dependence on foreign oil, and addressing climate change, instead of deregulation, denial, and cowboy diplomacy. This is the right way to go. It's not the right-WING way to go, but it's the RIGHT way to go.

My message to you obstructionists in Congress - get on board! This ship is turning around with you or without you, and then it will sail. If you're not on board, you'll be left behind, in more ways than one.

Some Think It's About Issues. Some Think It's About Personalities. I Think It's About Judgment.

There's been a lot of mud slinging recently between the two presidential candidacies. While John McCain makes all the effort he can to divert the focus from the issues to personalities, Barak Obama keeps trying to bring the focus back to the issues. Meanwhile, there's one thing that keeps evading the analysis of all the talking heads - what's really most important here is the issue of judgment. Of the two candidates, who has demonstrated the most prudent judgment? That's the guy I want running my country.

The Veep

Here's where we come to the issue of the selection of their Vice Presidential running mates. Barak Obama chose a vetted, experienced, United States Senator who can help him govern once he's in office. Obama chose someone whom no one can question whether he's ready to step into the most important job on Earth. No one can question if Joe Biden understands the complexities of our country and foreign policy. He's chairman of the Foreign Relations committee. Granted, he's not the Democrat's first choice, but he's certainly an acceptable selection for second choice. While many of Hillary's supporters were disappointed, the Democrats understand that it was solely Barak Obama's decision to make, and he chose the person with whom he felt most comfortable.

John McCain, on the other hand, chose someone who clearly has no experience in either foreign or domestic policy. He chose a self-described "hockey-mom" who believes in creationism, book-banning, diminishing gun safety laws, abolishing reproductive choice, drilling in ANWR, abstinence-only education, deception & distortion in campaigning, earmarks, stealing from the government, and abusing political power. What she doesn't believe in is global warming/climate change and that humans have any role in it. A former beauty queen and sports reporter, this woman could very-well be shouldering the most awesome responsibility on the planet. This right-wing, religious nut-job would be calling all the shots if/when McCain gets elected and if/when McCain drops dead in the next 4 years (which I understand from actuarial tables is a pretty good possibility).

I'm not going to rail on Sarah Palin in any more detail for her many infractions, deceitfulness, or extremist ideology - there are thousands of journalists doing a fine job of investigating and vetting her as I write this. Instead, I'm railing on John McCain for the judgment he exhibited in selecting this woman. Clearly this was not John McCain's decision. He had a short list from the lengthy search process, and she wasn't on it. He wanted Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman for his Veep. He would have settled for Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty as his Veep. But instead, after the right-wing extremist faction essentially vetoed those alternatives, John McCain settled on an ill-experienced woman who could energize the right-wing base.

John McCain did not choose someone who could help him govern the country after he got into office. Instead, he chose someone who could "fire up the base" to help him win the election. He didn't choose someone who is even slightly qualified to step into the presidency in the event he is incapacitated. Instead, he chose someone who could help him define his candidacy as that of 'change' (which, of course, is wholly & utterly ridiculous). He didn't choose a running mate that HE wanted. Instead, he chose someone the 'Religious Right' would accept. So much for John McCain's 'Maverick' status.


McCain - The Fighter

As painful as it was, I did watch much of the Republican convention, and all of John McCain's speech. I even watched the introduction video which highlighted his family heritage of military service. His father and grandfather were both highly decorated servicemen. His own service record is well known and his history as a prisoner of war is the stuff legends are made of. How many times did we hear that he can't raise his arms above his shoulders?

In his acceptance speech, John McCain used the word (or some derivative of the word) "fight" 25 times. I couldn't help but notice what a fighter he says he is. Couple that with his military background and his propensity for more war and 'victory' in Iraq, and I see a picture of someone whose inclination is to go to battle instead of exercising diplomacy.

After McCain's many gaffes (Czechoslovakia isn't still a country, Iran is not fueling the Sunni's, and Iraq doesn't border Pakistan), I see an old man who's inclined to senior moments instead of prudent judgment.

And after McCain's dirty, sleazy, slimy low-brow campaign tactics, I see someone who's surrounded himself with Bush's old henchmen (Rove & company, not-to-mention pathetic hacks like Joe Lieberman, Phil Graham, and Lindsey Graham), instead of people with integrity.

Anyone out there who actually believes the McCain/Palin presidential candidacy will bring real change in Washington is clearly not paying attention. Anyone out there who thinks John McCain has demonstrated prudent judgment and is a reforming maverick, must have just awoken from an 8-year sleep. And anyone out there who thinks Sarah Palin is qualified to be President of the United States (yes, I said "President" not "Vice President" because the Veep MUST be qualified for the #1 seat) is obviously intoxicated from the Religious-Right-Wing Kool-aid.


The Bottom Line

Wake up, America!!! Don't vote with your vagina. Don't vote with your penis. Don't even vote with your heart. Use your head and ask yourself which of these two men has demonstrated prudent, solid, and sensible judgment? Which one of these two men has demonstrated superior leadership, insightfulness, vision, and communicative ability? Which one of these two men has demonstrated that they can be trusted? Which one of these two men are driven by extremists & lobbyists, and which one of these two men are driven by social conscience? Which one of these two men was against the war in Iraq from the start and vows to bring the occupation to closure, and which one wants it to continue indefinately?

The contrast between these two men could not be more stark. It's astonishing that this race is so close. John McCain wants you to "stand up". I'm just asking you to WAKE UP!

Message to Barack: "It's not a war, it's an occupation"

July 16, 2008
Dear Mr. Obama,

I have watched you closely over the last several years since your debut to the world at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. That was an amazing speech and poised you not only your first term as senator from Illinois, but as the presidential candidate you are today. Clearly you have a huge wave of momentum that so many of us hope will catapult you into the White House. Your vision, your ideology, your judgment, and your ability to communicate put you so far above John McCain (and any Republican) in my book.

I too want to see this debacle in Iraq come to closure, and I agree with you on everything you've said about Iraq, with one exception. Please don't refer to the current conflict in Iraq as a "war". This is not a war. We are not at war with Iraq. We were at war with Iraq until Presi-dunce Bush stood on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and declared major military operations were over and we accomplished our mission. At that juncture, what started out as a war, turned into an occupation. A long, drawn-out, costly, grueling occupation of a foreign country. This is something you foresaw in your speech of 2002 while still in the Illinois Senate.

As long as people like yourself and the media continue to call this a "war", John McCain will continue to frame it as though it can be "won". He will continue to tout his experience & perseverance which will bring "success" and "victory".

You will not end this war. You will end the occupation of Iraq. You will rectify the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of our country.


One more thing...

And while you're at it, I sure hope you'll do something about the multi-national companies which have been raping the Iraqi people of their oil industry. Between the Production Sharing Agreements (PSA's), the looting (something like $12b missing), and the no-bid contracts to American corporations which largely hire contractors instead of Iraqi citizens, we've really screwed over these people - and they know it.

We should give Iraq back to the Iraqis and let them run their own country. We should give Iraq's oil industry back to the Iraqis and let them nationalize it and keep their profits to themselves. They will sub-contract to the multi-national companies if they need to, but there's no reason to have the multi-national companies 'own' the oil industry and take most of the profits out of the country.

When all is said and done, we can buy oil from Iraq at a reasonable price, like we should have been doing all along. At the same time, we can make great strides domestically to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by harvesting cleaner and environmentally friendly alternatives to oil. Fuel efficiency standards should not have been derailed by the Bush Administration. Every new vehicle manufactured or imported into this country should be a hybrid or have some semblance thereof. You certainly will have the power to institute tax advantages to those who make the investment to lower their carbon footprint by installing solar panels, windmills, insulated windows, etc. There are so many things we can do to both lower our demand for foreign oil AND address the global warming problem at the same time.


I believe in you, Mr. Obama. Good luck in this election in November. And if I can give you any advice whatsoever - please stop calling this a war. This conflict in Iraq is not a war, it's an occupation. If you can successfully re-frame it as such, then John McCain will no longer be able to frame it as winnable.


Scott Shuster
American Citizen