Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Live Blog: Tax Policy at a Crossroads

Bookmark and Share

12:20 p.m. "Tax Policy at a Crossroads" is the 3rd panel today at the Humphrey Institute's series of forums entitled, America's Future: Conversations about Politics and Policy during the 2008 Republican National Convention. The discussion is moderated by Howard Gleckman (Senior Research Associate, Urban Institute). The panelists are:

* Leonard Burman (Director, Urban - Brookings Tax Policy Center)
* Austan Goolsbee (Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Economics, University of Chicago Graduate School of Business and Senior Policy Advisor to Senator Barack Obama)
* John Taylor (Professor of Economics at Stanford University, Economic Advisor to Senator John McCain)
* Joel Slemrod (Paul W. McCracken Collegiate Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy, Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan and Director of the Office of Tax Policy Research)

12:29 p.m. Taylor states McCain does not want to raise taxes on anyone if elected president. McCain's tax play is 'focused on health care' and would provide a $5,000 tax credit to all Americans, including those who are not employed.

12:39 p.m. Goolsbee faults President Bush for trillions of dollars of unfunded tax cuts and thus increased budget deficits. Goolsbee links McCain's tax plan with the Bush plan - adding billions of dollars per year to the budget deficit. On Obama's side, he states Obama will reduce taxes for 95 percent of Americans.

12:44 p.m. Goolsbee says 2/3 of Obama's tax plan goes to people making less than $65,000 per year, and under McCain's plan it is just 6 percent and therefore "following the Bush playbook" and not benefiting "ordinary Americans."

12:45 p.m. Goolsbee is coming out much more on the attack against McCain than Taylor did against Obama.

12:48 p.m. Slemrod states both tax plans would retain most of the Bush tax cuts, but that McCain would collect about $100 billion less per year. McCain also emphasizes business tax cuts and on capital income. Obama would raise more revenues on high income individuals, as in the Clinton era. Obama would collect substantially less from middle-income taxpayers. Slemrod says there is no sign of fundamental tax reform under either plan.

12:52 p.m. Slemrod adds there is no sign either policy will address the long-term fiscal imbalance between the promises the U.S government has made in Social Security and Medicare.

12:54 p.m. Slemrod suggests one rough way to compare the McCain and Obama tax plans is to (imperfectly) compare the Clinton and Bush years.

12:57 p.m. Burman says a major change to the income tax system is going to come soon out of necessity in this country. Action will be forced due to, for example, all of President Bush's tax cuts will expire by 2010, in addition to the unprecented demands that will be placed on the federal government by the retirement of baby boomers.

1:01 p.m. Burman criticizes the two candidates for running health policy changes (e.g. credits) through the tax system. Burman says we need to 1) pay for government and end deficit spending, 2) not rely so heavily on the income tax for our tax system, and instead adopting, for example, value-added taxes, and 3) simply the tax system so it gains more support and does not seem so unfair by seeming to benefit the wealthy, who find loopholes.

1:13 p.m. After Taylor accused Obama of having a tax increases, Goolsbee vehemently disagreed and said Obama's plan has a 'net tax cut.' Taylor quipped that is a 'not tax cut.'

1:15 p.m. Goolsbee takes a shot at McCain's tax plan as a "trickle down" policy.

1:21 p.m. When asked how he would pay for the tax cuts, Goolsbee does not initially give specifics (he does not say from where cuts in spending would come). When pressed he lists: a responsible drawdown in the War in Iraq, ending direct subsidies to high-income farmers and student loan providers, reducing earmarks back to 1994 levels, and ending no-bid contracts.

1:26 p.m. For his part, Taylor relies on an increased revenue stream from economic growth and cutting the growth of spending, rather than listing particular budget cuts. He also wishes to end agricultural subsidies (like ethanol) and earmarks.

Previous post: Live Blog: Convention Politics and the Fall Elections II
Next post: Live Blog: Moving Forward On Health Care Reform

4 Comments


  • McCain's economic plan has an air of Taft...During the Great Depression, President Taft was confident in the trickle down theory and said many of the same things that McCain continues to reiterate. It's a form of confidence that is dangerous for a president to believe. We should never elect a president who simply has faith that everything will work out fine...

  • Maybe a trickle down policy is what the country needs at this point in time. Since the financial debacle on Wall Street, people have been pointing fingers at the rich and the imbalanced welfare policy of the US. A lot has to be spent in the future on important sectors like health care.

  • I agree with "Tax Jobs" above. A lot is going to be needed for health care, as well as other important social protections.

  • I find it so very humorous seeing posts like these that were made before the election and how the Tax policies that were trumpeted on the election trail have actually already become moot and have morphed into something significantly different. I guess the only thing that we can really do is let the individuals wait until they e-file their tax returns and see just how much the government is going to take away! http://www.taxadvisr.com

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Kevin McCarthy Becomes Least Tenured Floor Leader in US House History

    At less than four terms, McCarthy has served 423 fewer days in the chamber than any floor leader in U.S. House history and almost 10 years less than the average leader.

    Political Crumbs

    The Second Time Around

    Former Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez became the seventh major party or second place gubernatorial candidate in Colorado to get a second chance at the office when he narrowly won his party's nomination last month. Two of the previous six candidates were successful. Democrat Alva Adams lost his first gubernatorial bid to Benjamin Eaton in 1884, but was victorious two years later against William Meyer. Democrat Charles Johnson placed third in 1894 behind Republican Albert McIntyre and Populist incumbent Governor David Waite but returned as the Fusion (Democrat/Populist) nominee in 1898 and defeated GOPer Henry Wolcott. Gubernatorial candidates who received a second chance but lost both general elections include Democrat Thomas Patterson (1888, 1914), Progressive Edward Costigan (1912, 1914), Republican Donald Brotzman (1954, 1956), and Republican David Strickland (1978, 1986).


    How Are the Plurality Winners Doing?

    Nearly 40 percent of plurality winners of U.S. Senate elections lose their seat in the next election cycle. Will that happen to any of the three such incumbents on the ballot in 2014? Recent polling suggests Democrats Al Franken of Minnesota, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Jeff Merkley of Oregon all currently have an advantage over their nominated/frontrunning GOP opponents, but each is flirting with plurality support once again. Franken led endorsed GOPer Mike McFadden 48 to 42 percent in a new SurveyUSA poll while the polling group showed Merkley with a 50 to 32 percent advantage over Monica Wehby. Begich led each of the three major GOP candidates in last month's PPP survey: 42 to 37 percent over Daniel Sullivan, 41 to 33 percent over Mead Treadwell, and 43 to 27 percent over Joe Miller.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting