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

    Strange Bedfellows: A Historical Review of Divided US Senate Delegations

    Over the last century, states have been twice as likely to be represented by a single political party in the U.S. Senate than have a split delegation; only Delaware, Iowa, and Illinois have been divided more than half the time.

    Political Crumbs

    Haugh to Reach New Heights

    The North Carolina U.S. Senate race between Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and Republican Thom Tillis may go down to the wire next Tuesday, but along the way Libertarian nominee Sean Haugh is poised to set a state record for a non-major party candidate. Haugh, who previously won 1.5 percent of the vote in the Tar Heel State's 2002 race, has polled at or above five percent in 10 of the last 12 polls that included his name. The current high water mark for a third party or independent candidate in a North Carolina U.S. Senate election is just 3.3 percent, recorded by Libertarian Robert Emory back in 1992. Only one other candidate has eclipsed the three percent mark - Libertarian Christopher Cole with 3.1 percent in 2008.


    Gubernatorial Highs and Lows

    Two sitting governors currently hold the record for the highest gubernatorial vote ever received in their respective states by a non-incumbent: Republican Matt Mead of Wyoming (65.7 percent in 2010) and outgoing GOPer Dave Heineman of Nebraska (73.4 percent in 2006). Republican Gary Herbert of Utah had not previously won a gubernatorial contest when he notched a state record 64.1 percent for his first victory in 2010, but was an incumbent at the time after ascending to the position in 2009 after the early departure of Jon Huntsman. Meanwhile, two sitting governors hold the record in their states for the lowest mark ever recorded by a winning gubernatorial candidate (incumbent or otherwise): independent-turned-Democrat Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island (36.1 percent in 2010) and Democrat Terry McAuliffe of Virginia (47.8 percent in 2013).


    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