Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
SPENDING IS SPENDING.
It's not that The Washington Post is wrong to point out that the Democrats have proposed a lot of spending without offering up much in the way of new revenues. But after spending a whole editorial castigating the Democrats' for fiscal irresponsibility and even providing readers with a helpful chart that tracks the outlays, it's a bit weird for the Post to just toss in a to-be-sure, "the Republican's proposals for new tax cuts dwarf the Democrats' plans."
That, of course, is also true. From the point of the federal government's balance sheet. there's not a dime's worth of difference between a dollar spent on health care, on a fighter plan, or on a tax cut. McCain's tax cuts -- which include the extension of the Bush tax cut and the repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, neither of which are included on CAP's cool McCain thermometer -- dwarf the spending plans of the Democrats before you even look into his programs (or his war agenda). But that's rarely mentioned, because the media doesn't really view tax cuts as spending in the way they view new social programs as spending. So you'll get a whole editorial on those naughty Democrats with their ambitious agendas and an ass-covering sentence on McCain's plan to drive the government into bankruptcy. Charming.
Speaking of McCain -- and the remarkable free pass he's been getting -- today marks the first day of TAP's McCain week, in which we'll be exploring a new facet of his exciting and innovative agenda for the country each day. The first piece goes up in a few hours, and I'll say more on it then.
COMMENTS (7)
How can the cut in the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25% cost $100 billion, when that amount represents the ENTIRE amount the IRS collects from corporate taxes in a fiscal year?
Posted by: David68 | April 28, 2008 11:10 AM
neither of which are included on CAP's cool McCain thermometer
Not trying to improve McCain's image or anything-- if that is possible-- but the AMT repeal is included on the thermometer, according to the text included. It's just the extension of the Bush tax cuts that doesn't appear to be included.
Posted by: Scott K | April 28, 2008 11:11 AM
David68,
As seen in the current CBO baseline budget projections here, the actual corporate income tax revenue for 2007 was 370 billion. So 100 billion sounds about right, assuming all else in current tax law remains fixed.
Posted by: Scott K | April 28, 2008 11:22 AM
Sorry, the link didn't quite come up properly... here it is in plain text:
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/budproj.shtml
I need to brush up on my HTML...
Posted by: Scott K | April 28, 2008 11:23 AM
Since we've seen the consequences of getting into fights without a plan, I would say spending more on a fighter plan would be a good idea.
Posted by: Bill C | April 28, 2008 1:13 PM
Thanks, Scott K.
I thought the annual numbers for corporate tax revenue were smaller than that.
Posted by: David68 | April 28, 2008 3:06 PM
No problem, David68. The corporate tax revenue actually used to be smaller-- I believe it was around 120B in 2001.
One may draw some inferences from the fact that the number has gone up significantly in the recent past...
Posted by: Scott K | April 28, 2008 10:16 PM