Race For A Trillion
Kimberley Strassel over at the Wall Street Journal has been trying to keep track of the spending proposals being thrown around by the two Democratic candidates. This is not an easy task since both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton seem to come up with new, expensive mandates every day. But the fact is that both candidates appear to be clawing desperately to reach the trillion dollar mark for new programs. With no explanation of how they propse to raise that kind of money to spend, other than to promise to soak the "rich." At the rate they're going at it here, the "rich" will have to be defined as anyone earning more than $5 per month. Or even less. This gives John McCain a major opening, no matter who the nominee is.
This is going to be an old-fashioned debate on spending, and here the divide will be of Grand Canyon proportions. Democrats have presented themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility of late, a message that contrasted well with spendthrift Republicans in the 2006 elections. The Democratic presidential candidates will struggle to make that case, given both are inching toward the $900-billion-in-proposed-new-spending mark.
Mr. Obama's wish list for just one term? Some $260 billion over four years for health care. Another $60 billion for an energy plan. A further $340 billion for his tax plan. A $14 billion national service plan. A $72 billion education package. Also, $25 billion in foreign assistance funding, $2 billion for Iraqi refugees and $1.5 billion for paid-leave systems. (I surely forgot some.) Mr. Obama says he'll pay for these treasures by stopping the Iraq war and taxing the rich. But both Democrats have already spent the tax hikes several times over, and even a Ph.D. would struggle with this math. (Ed Note: That's about $775 million.)
Making a message of fiscal responsibility harder is Mr. McCain's reputation as a fiscal tightwad, and his role as one of the fiercest critics of his own party's spending blowout. Watch him also expand this debate to earmarks, as he's already done with an ad ripping into Mrs. Clinton for her $1 million request for a Woodstock museum. Mr. McCain's earmark requests last year? $0.
Mr. Obama's and Mrs. Clinton's economic speeches this week were noteworthy for sweeping government initiatives, straight out of FDR-land. Both propose a federally backed "infrastructure bank" that would finance projects with subsidies, loan guarantees and bonds. Both are vowing to "create" five million "green-collar" jobs in the environmental sector. These are in addition to giving government a huge new health-care role.
The fact is that these programs are wildly expensive and represent a permanent drain on already overburdened tax revenues. The tax increases required for all this will stop the economy dead in its tracks. And there is still the looming demographic nightmare of the boomers retirements. The word "rich" will have to be defined lower and lower. Don't believe it? Remember when Bill Clinton pushed his huge tax increases through, the rich were those earning over $200k. In the Rangel tax proposal that is already out on the table, the rich are defined as earning $150k - despite more than a decade of inflation. The rich just keep getting poorer.
By Americaneocon, Friday, 15 February , 2008 @ 12:44 pm
Great posting!!
Strassel’s my favorite!!
By Mockinbird, Friday, 15 February , 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Hey, the rich are presently persons making $75,000 a year.
Yikes! I’m getting close…or rather, the rich level is closing in on me.
Dang! I’m going to muni bonds.
By FedUp, Friday, 15 February , 2008 @ 1:35 pm
I’m sure that congress will engage their mighty brainpower to solve this problem after they get to the bottom of the steroid scandal (of great national security) and find some time from naming post offices and such…
By Plumb Bob, Friday, 15 February , 2008 @ 3:33 pm
I hate this, but I have to admit… McCain, with his reputation for despising pork, is looking a little better as a candidate today than he was a week ago.(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
By syn, Saturday, 16 February , 2008 @ 6:44 am
It’s good that McCain despises pork but his energy plan and support of man-made global warming is highly questionable(pork is nothing compared to the high cost of carbon tax)
Speaking of despising pork, why has McCain not publically championed Sen De Mint’s Semper Fi Act by coming down on the city of Berkeley and those Democrats who blocked the bills passage. We are talking about our US military having the right to free speech and $200+million in haute cusine pork for Berkeley, one would think McCain would be all over this issue.
.