Politico
By JONATHAN MARTIN & MIKE ALLEN | 8/20/08 6:32 PM EST

LAS CRUCES, N.M. — Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called lobbyists “birds of prey� Wednesday and vowed to enforce a lifetime ban on lobbying for members of his administration.

“I would not allow anyone who worked for my administration to go back to lobbying,� McCain said. “They would have to make that pledge.�
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WTF? For starters "anyone who worked for my administration" would have to include thousands of federal workers. Is "lobbyist" defined? Is this legal? Can such a pledge be enforced? Is McCain going to file civil suits against workers violating their pledge? Is he going to vigorously work to pass legislation specific to his administration's employees, and his only, that does institute a lifetime ban? Will someone just call him on this and force answers to the above questions?

Lifetime ban? McCain: good luck getting anyone to work in your administration. Besides, of course, the ones who actually believe your pile of horseshit ideas...

Cue the usual pack of self-styled "rugged individualists" carping about "class warfare!!!!1!" in three...two...

In fairness, $32,000 is not very much to the rich who are making at least $5,000,000 per year.

McCain's comment about lobbyists will test the limits of the corporate-owned mass media's ability to allow McCain to get away with saying anything he likes, no matter how outlandishly and blatantly and sickeningly dishonest it is.

There has never been a more slavishly obedient, bought-and-paid-for tool of corporate lobbyists in the US Senate than John McCain.

Probably no presidential campaign in history has been so saturated with lobbyists -- including those in conspicuous, top-level positions of running the campaign -- than McCain's current organization.

To cover up the appalling hypocrisy and sneering contempt for the American people embodied in McCain's sickeningly dishonest comment, the corporate-owned media will have to engage in even greater contortions of double-think and doubletalk than usual.

With regard to the McCain's proposal to continue the CheneyBush policies of huge tax cuts for the ultra-rich, I note that the McCain and Obama campaigns announced their agreement on the presidential debates.

The debates will be moderated by the corporate-media's "on-air personalities" Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill, Tom Brokaw and Bob Shieffer.

I would suggest that at the start of each debate, before the candidates begin to answer questions, that each of these highly-paid corporate employees be required to state their annual income and how they would benefit from McCain's proposed tax cuts for the rich.

In fairness, $32,000 is not very much to the rich who are making at least $5,000,000 per year.

So, what, we shouldn't have a problem with giving them a big undeserved tax break, because they won't approeciate it?

The article doesn't mention McCain's new tax on healthcare benefits.
.

LAS CRUCES, N.M. — Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called lobbyists “birds of prey� Wednesday and vowed to enforce a lifetime ban on lobbying for members of his administration.

This one is full of "meh".

How about banning former lobbyists from his administration?
Now that would be full of mavericky goodness.
What's that you say?
Well, sure, he'd have to break a couple hundred promises, but when has that stopped him from changing his position in the past?

Can any of you people tell me what percentage of income tax revenue is paid by the top 1% of taxpayers ? How about the top 10% ? The real tax burden on the middle class is NOT income tax but FICA. The problem is that FICA does not fully fund Social Security and Medicare so it is very difficult to cut the rates. Obama wants to raise the cap on income subject to FICA but that breaks a bargain made 60 years ago that benefits would be capped along with income subject to tax. These are basic facts. I know it is fun to simplify these things in order to try to convince ignorant people to vote for your candidate but you should know better in a forum like this.

I wonder if you even know that the top 1% pays a larger share of income tax now than they did before Bush's election in 2000.

Oh well.

Obama will increase the tax on everyone except the
85,000-100,000 bracket.

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/august-08-08/the-folly-of-obama2019s-tax-plan

Ooh, somebody's going to get fired!

You mean they still have to pay taxes after eight years of the Repubs?! Someone has not been doing their job...

Mike K, I certainly hope Republicans make an issue of the very rich and top one percentile paying more taxes now than 8 years ago. Obama can then hire an actor and cut an ad. We can watch some guy cry about having an additional 10 grand of his 1.5 $$milllion dollar hedge fund earnings lost to the IRS. Maybe piss and moan for a few seconds about Mindy and Alex having to spend spring break in Cancun instead of Monte Carlo. You know, a real heartfelt populist appeal for electing McCain and thereby cutting the poor guy a break.

There's even a bigger problem with cutting taxes on the rich.

All the money they "save" by not paying taxes? They have to park it somewhere. Both the mortgage security bubble and the commodities bubble were blown by people with too much excess money looking to park it somewhere.

Meanwhile, the infrastructure that underpins our economy -- roads, ports, rail, power, bridges for Chrissakes -- is rotting because there is no tax money to upgrade and update it.

Capitalists will never voluntarily fund infrastructure because there is no profit in it for them. Shortsighted, sure, but when has the quarterly bottom line been anything but.

"No new taxes" capitalists and their Republicrat lap dogs are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Actually, its not direct enough.

The truth is Obama's plan eases the burden on the poor and middle class, whereas McCain's basically leaves it where it is.

Here is the average change in Tax:

Lowest 20% Mccain -$21 Obama -$617
Second 20% McCain -$124 Obama -$950
Middle 20% McCain -$282 Obama -1,035
Fourth 20% McCain -$513 Obama -$757
Wealthiest 20% McCain -$2,816 Obama +$6,770
Wealthiest 1% McCain -$31,943 Obama +114,238

Mike K wrote: "I wonder if you even know that the top 1% pays a larger share of income tax now than they did before Bush's election in 2000."

I wonder if you even know that the top one percent has a larger share of income and owns a larger share of the nation's wealth than they did before Bush's election in 2000.

I wonder if you even know that the after tax income of the top one percent rose faster than that of any other income group -- throughout the 8 years of the Clinton administration, when taxes on the rich were at the same levels that Obama proposes.

I wonder if you even know that you are a weak-minded, ignorant dupe of right-wing extremist propaganda.

Neither candidate's tax "reform" plan is good since both of them increase the federal deficit. Obama's increases the deficit less than McCains, but then there is a lot of smoke and mirrors behind both candidates explanations of how they are going to pay for their tax cuts.

".....there is a lot of smoke and mirrors behind both candidates explanations of how they are going to pay for their tax cuts."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

optical weenie, of course you know the penalty paid by a politician for honesty, transparency and a public confession of calculated yet incoherent pandering when presenting policy proposals? A swift retirement to the private sector.

I did not expect any recognition of the fact that tax policy will not determine who is rich and who is poor. Nor did I expect serious discussion of economics. You met my expectations. Secular A, do you really think this juvenile trash talk makes you look intelligent ?

Optical, I agree that both tax plans will not reduce the deficit enough but Obama's will blow the gaskets. I supported McCain in 2000 but we have different circumstances now. He does support private accounts in SS for the young and I think that is the only chance anyone under 40 will see any money at 65.

steve duncan - the penalty either politician will pay is the inane reaction of their rapid blogger fans to either of their tax plans. Both the left and right sides are grasping onto what ever tiny hypothetically proposed action they can find to buttress their inane argument that the other side is going to bring their side down into poverty.

It's stupid and only shows how genuinely immature the blogosphere is. Just like the juvenile reaction to McCain not knowing how many houses he has. They aren't his, they belong to his wife. She keeps her finances separate from him. So if she bought or sold something last week how would he know?

And Mike K. I disagree on having private SS accounts for young people. Most folks, when they are young, do not think of retirement, it is too far off. So they will not put money away. And even if they did, it is unwise to put it on the stock market, given that a severe swing downward will really crimp them in the long run. Just look at the hit your 401K took recently for pete's sake. So where should they put their money. In CD's in a bank that goes tits up and so they lose anything over $250K?
I can see increasing the ceiling of the social security contribution, and frankly I don't think that there is going to be too many folks who would go into paroxysm's if this happened.

For a really good look at Obama's economic ideas see this coming Sunday's New York Times magazine. The good news: Obama has ideas. The best news: my taxes are going down.

optical weenie, the McCains are married. Most of the rest of us have been married at one time or another. If either spouse makes a significant purchase the other usually knows at the time or finds out in short order. Depending on the state marriage laws may even dictate that new Mercedes you bought just became 1/2 your spouse's property. Sure, Cindy McCain is fabulously wealthy, has her own accountants and tax advisors, real estate experts, etc. However, even in her income bracket knowledge of the addition of a two-three-four million dollar residence, vacation property, condo or deep in the woods getaway cabin reaches John McCain. What, he's never invited to tour a newly purchased 2 million dollar home? I'd say taking proactive measures to prevent him from knowing about it might raise some marital suspicions. You are mistaken in this matter. Losing track of how many residences you, or your spouse, own is legitimately an issue to raise as evidence of being a bit removed from the harried daily financial straits your constituents cope with.

steve duncan, have you ever heard of a pre-nup?

Even John Kerry didn't know all the details of Theresa's personal and philanthropic business.

And Mike K. I disagree on having private SS accounts for young people. Most folks, when they are young, do not think of retirement, it is too far off.

My son, who is 43 and who definitely does not agree with me on politics, is convinced he will never see a dime of SS. I think by the time someone is married, they are starting to think about this. I know I was. The stock market is good for the long term, over 20 years. I invested my pension plan, all privately funded, in lots of things. I think most people can do that and do better than 1.5% per year, the SS figure.

Those who have a fixation on the rich ad taxes should ask themselves why the really obscenely rich these days mostly support Obama. For a hint, you might look at Europe which has very high tax rates. Go to Monaco and look at the money walking around. You know what ? The really rich don't pay them. Ask George Soros how much he pays.

I have a German friend who moved here a couple of years ago. He and his wife waited years for a visa. He is a master plumber. They came because they can get as rich as they want to work for. Not in Germany.

Mike K wrote: "Secular A, do you really think this juvenile trash talk makes you look intelligent"

You are the weak-minded, ignorant dittohead who is slavishly regurgitating inane, scripted, BS talking points spoon-fed to you by the right-wing extremist propaganda machine, not me. So you should be more concerned about how intelligent you don't look.

And you are evidently incapable of addressing the substantive points that I made:

The rich are bringing in a much higher proportion of the national income, and own a much higher proportion of the nation's wealth, than they did before Bush became president. If the rich are paying a higher percentage of the overall taxes, that's why.

Under Clinton-era tax rates, the rich got richer, faster, than anyone else, and since Obama is basically proposing to move somewhat in the direction of the more progressive tax rates of the 90s, the rich can expect to do quite well under Obama's tax plan.

Your altruistic concern for the poor pitiful tax-burdened billionaires of Bush's Base is unfounded.

Sure weenie, the mere existence of a prenup grants either spouse the right to spend millions and millions of dollars on assorted homes safe in the knowledge they'll never have to share. Does it also mean they conduct such affairs entirely in secret? Telling their spouse upon hearing rumors of lavish 4 million dollar condos purchased in another state it's none of their goddamned business, "Get out your prenup and read it buddy, now keep you nose out of my business." Yeah, that's the state of the McCain's marriage. Cindy accumulates various expensive residences scattered across the nation and John is either ignorant of it all or given an icy glare. Jeez, you can be dense.