Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Tax cuttin’ Mac

posted at 2:10 pm on February 14, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Interesting. Maverick McCain is a squish on border security and has worked with the Democrats on the McCain-Feingold abomination, but he does have a long career as a true tax-cutter according to Kevin Stach.

Mr. McCain took over Barry Goldwater’s Senate seat in 1987. In 1989 — in the face of rising deficits — Mr. McCain voted for a pro-growth cut in the capital-gains tax to 35% and to expand tax-advantaged Individual Retirement Accounts.

In 1990, those rising deficits led President George H.W. Bush to abandon his “no new taxes” pledge and seek out a budget deal with Senate Democrats. The negotiations were so politically sensitive that Office of Management and Budget Director Richard Darman and congressional leaders decamped to Andrews Air Force base. They ultimately brought back a deal that included a trade-off: supposedly binding budget levels in exchange for what was then the largest tax increase in history.

Many Republican budget hawks in the Senate — including Bob Dole, Pete Domenici, Warren Rudman, Alan Simpson, Strom Thurmond and Orin Hatch — strongly pushed this package. Yet Mr. McCain and other supply-siders such as Connie Mack, Trent Lott and Phil Gramm broke ranks with George H.W. Bush and the GOP leadership to vote “no.”

Throughout the 1990s, Mr. McCain was a reliable, down-the-line tax cutter. In 1992, he voted for an amendment by supply-side hero Sen. Bob Kasten to require a super-majority in Congress to raise taxes. That same year, he joined just 37 other senators in pushing for Sen. Connie Mack’s proposal to cut the capital gains tax to 15%.

Stach even makes a good case for McCain’s actions on the Bush tax cuts in 2001. Read the whole thing.

While I wouldn’t expect any McCain critics, and I count myself among them, to just fall in line after reading this article, compare McCain’s record to Barack Obama’s rhetoric. There is a clear difference between the two on taxes. McCain cuts them, Obama raises them. McCain wants to cut government spending; Obama promises to raise it.

He still needs to dump Juan Hernandez.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

Here ya go, just to make your day.

DMeNTe on February 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM

He still needs to dump Juan Hernandez

That simple act would go a long way towards reconciling McCain with an influential section of the Republican base.
So why doesn’t he do it?
Fundraising?

billy on February 14, 2008 at 2:16 PM

He still needs to dump Juan Hernandez.

Theworldisnotenough on February 14, 2008 at 2:16 PM

He still needs to dump Juan Hernandez.

True dat. That would take away the queasy feeling from my stomach.

So in my Indiana primary, do I still crossover and vote for Glacier?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on February 14, 2008 at 2:17 PM

So in my Indiana primary, do I still crossover and vote for Glacier?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on February 14, 2008 at 2:17 PM

I would. McCain has the nomination, especially after Mitt’s announcement today. Glacier doesn’t, and it looks more and more like Obamassiah may be the nom.

amerpundit on February 14, 2008 at 2:19 PM

interestingly though, the article only goes through to the ’90s. I believe, as mC got the whiff of the White House, his record became untrustworthy. by the late ’90s on, his ‘center right’ strategy took hold, leading to today’s messy mC.

jimmer on February 14, 2008 at 2:19 PM

He still needs to dump Juan Hernandez.

And Armitage. And build the gosh-darn fence.

And I want a pony.

see-dubya on February 14, 2008 at 2:21 PM

It would have been to McCain’s great advantage in this election cycle if he had continued that trend for the last 8 years.

He’s asking for party unity now, but in 2001 and 2003, bitter about his defeat in the 2000 primaries, he went against his normal trend and set a terrible example of party unity by thumbing his nose at the GOP.

thirteen28 on February 14, 2008 at 2:22 PM

A quick toss to Cuffy Megs for her article on McCain’s Son who is surving in Iraq and McCain for not politisizing it.

I think McCain is getting some inside info on the war.

William Amos on February 14, 2008 at 2:25 PM

Thanks for losening the clothespin on my nose. It’s still uncomfortable but that eases part of the pain.

shick on February 14, 2008 at 2:28 PM

Was it last week where I read that McCain had made overtures to Kerry re: a vice-presidential run? I didn’t have a chance to follow up on it – and it was, apparently, old news – but, this is the man that is going to get the GOP nomination?

This is the man?

OhEssYouCowboys on February 14, 2008 at 2:29 PM

William Amos on February 14, 2008 at 2:25 PM

I’m a dude, dude!

Cuffy Meigs on February 14, 2008 at 2:30 PM

So which McCain are we to support? The old, pre-2000, McCain; the post 2000, liberal/moderate, McCain who said the tax cuts were for the rich and voted against them; or the 2008 campaign McCain, who doesn’t lead for profit but now wants to make the tax cuts permanent? s-s-s-straight talk.

Weight of Glory on February 14, 2008 at 2:30 PM

I’m a dude, dude!

Cuffy Meigs on February 14, 2008 at 2:30 PM

In the NOW vernacular, you’re a non-female unit with less leg hair.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM

I just felt like Silky for a moment…

Cuffy Meigs on February 14, 2008 at 2:35 PM

I’m a dude, dude!

Cuffy Meigs on February 14, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Lol so sorry but great post

William Amos on February 14, 2008 at 2:39 PM

This makes Phil Gramm’s support make more sense. They fought this battle together in the Senate.

And I want a pony.

see-dubya on February 14, 2008 at 2:21 PM

LOL. You and half the little girls in America. The other half wants to be a princess, if you were wondering what to wish for next. I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. On any of those wishes.

TX Mom on February 14, 2008 at 2:39 PM

Cuffy Meigs on February 14, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Nice post, dude ……. and btw, does Michael Moore about this?

Harpoon on February 14, 2008 at 2:40 PM

BTw Jimmy McCain is the Marine his brother Jack in in the Naval acadamy so two of McCains sons are in the Military.

William Amos on February 14, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Interesting that McCain is under far greater scrutiny (by the MSM and self-appointed “defenders of conservatism) than either of the possible Dem candidates.

I’d like to see their feet held to the fire in the same repetitive, mean-spirited, look-for-the-slightest-”wrongdoing” manner.

Granted, the guy is absolutely wrong on border issues. But my gut feeling is that he is far more patriotic, straight-up and trustworthy than the opponents.

MrScribbler on February 14, 2008 at 2:43 PM

BTw Jimmy McCain is the Marine his brother Jack in in the Naval acadamy so two of McCains sons are in the Military.

William Amos on February 14, 2008 at 2:40 PM

That’s all well and good, but……..Let’s see more of Megan McCain! Whoo hoo!!!!

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on February 14, 2008 at 2:44 PM

I’m a dude, dude!

Cuffy Meigs on February 14, 2008 at 2:30 PM

Been meaning to ask you…why did you name yourself after such a brutish character?

RushBaby on February 14, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Way off topic, but check out C_SPAN senate right now for Boxer’s defence of Berkely and their city council. Maybe McCain would care to weifg in.

tomk59 on February 14, 2008 at 2:44 PM

And Mussolini made the trains run on time.

LegendHasIt on February 14, 2008 at 2:49 PM

I’ve never considered a vote for McCain. In fact I’ve pledged not to support him in the primary. However, if he wants to begin to show me that he really will be a true conservative for the general election (which, let’s face it, we’ve already handed this thing to him, so he doesn’t care what we think now) he will promise to prevent this. But I’m not holding my breath.

If the country is going to look at Texas the next couple of weeks prior to our primary on the 4th, then let’s shine the light on the TTC and make it a national story. It must be stopped.

pecan pie on February 14, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Way off topic, but check out C_SPAN senate right now for Boxer’s defence of Berkely and their city council. Maybe McCain would care to weifg in.

tomk59 on February 14, 2008 at 2:44 PM

I have been really, REALLY hoping McCain would get out there and publicly support those Marines and condemn the actions of Berkeley and Code Pink.

I’m going to put this out here right now: If McCain does that, I will turn 180 and get behind his candidacy 100%.

RushBaby on February 14, 2008 at 2:51 PM

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on February 14, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Absolutely, more Megan. The main reason that I didn’t vote for Gore in 2000 was that we were promised Gore daughters in 1992. We didn’t get them.

I don’t think I can stand to be disappointed again.

Harpoon on February 14, 2008 at 2:52 PM

Been meaning to ask you…why did you name yourself after such a brutish character?
RushBaby on February 14, 2008 at 2:44 PM

I’ve been wondering that myself.
Why not Ellsworth Toohey?
:-)

LegendHasIt on February 14, 2008 at 2:53 PM

Been meaning to ask you…why did you name yourself after such a brutish character?

RushBaby on February 14, 2008 at 2:44 PM

Dunno. Just a fit of trendy late-90’s irony when I started going by that handle, I suppose. Or I was drunk. In any case — eat it, John Galt!

Cuffy Meigs on February 14, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Hmmm we all thought Bush was a conservative and turned out to be a centrist. Everyone sees McCain as the opposite, so maybe this strange looking plant I found and smoked in the woods really isn’t a weather balloon.

- The Cat

MirCat on February 14, 2008 at 3:04 PM

He’s also the original anti-pork crusader. He’s been fighting earmarks long before it became popular.

rightwingprof on February 14, 2008 at 3:04 PM

so maybe this strange looking plant I found and smoked in the woods really isn’t a weather balloon.

- The Cat

MirCat on February 14, 2008 at 3:04 PM

HA!

Weight of Glory on February 14, 2008 at 3:05 PM

In any case — eat it, John Galt!

Cuffy Meigs on February 14, 2008 at 2:59 PM

AAAAAAAck! Irony give me a heart attack!

RushBaby on February 14, 2008 at 3:05 PM

billy on February 14, 2008 at 2:16 PM

How about the strategic understanding that an Obama victory has a potential backlash among the Hispanic population against him and if Mac can exploit that backlash, we are that much closer to keeping an unaccomplished airhead out of the presidency.

JayHaw Phrenzie on February 14, 2008 at 3:22 PM

I wouldn’t expect any McCain critics, and I count myself among them, to just fall in line after reading this article

You don’t have to fall in line. You just have to fall in love.

calbear on February 14, 2008 at 3:29 PM

He had to be doing SOME good, at some point, to get to where he is now. I applaud him not promoting the fact that his kids are in the service, unfortunately, it will only be conservative bloggers who will point this out. Y’all know the MSM will not be trumpeting the fact that he’s admirably left this out of his politicking. If nothing else, it will garner him some additional respect.

That said….I voted Mitt!

Biffstir on February 14, 2008 at 3:54 PM

……we are that much closer to keeping an unaccomplished airhead out of the presidency.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 14, 2008 at 3:22 PM

And what has McCain ever accomplished that actually benefits us commoners? His only actual ‘accomplishments’ are political back-room deals that cause more problems than they solve.

LegendHasIt on February 14, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Juan Hernandez rounds up toe-headed american boys for ritual sacrifice at Bohemeian Grove.

I read it at WND.

Hiney Von Pewps on February 14, 2008 at 4:01 PM

McCain will keep Hernandez so long as he wants some Hispanic votes.

That McCain will keep taxes low, keep terrorists otherwise occupied, and nominate conservative judges are reasons to prefer him to any democrat. And we appreciatively note McCain’s vote against the banning water boarding; he will not disarm the Commander in Chief, nor will he make America vulnerable to terrorism.

So long as he can maintain a grip on the conservative vote, McCain’s dalliance with Democrats is politically savvy for the time being. Together, we conservatives are all holding our breath waiting for McCain to make a pledge of honor on our behalf. But then, he would sacrifice the moderate votes, and there lays the rub from the general population. Would moderates actually prefer him to Obama, anyway? Probably not, so he may as well shed excessive effort to remain “currently” liberal.

Prior to our general election vote, we demand to have McCain’s sacred pledge on immigration to commit his every presidential Chief Executive effort towards governmental compliance with LAW ENFORCEMENT at all levels to secure national borders, and for McCain to abstain from exerting his own efforts to overhaul the immigration process with anything more than facilitation of processing legal entry alien naturalization of citizenship compliant to existing laws, and prosecuting all offenders.

maverick muse on February 14, 2008 at 4:05 PM

McCain is an admiral’s son who was a POW, and whose captors tried to use his family connections for propaganda purposes. From a father’s perspective, keeping his sons out of the news makes perfect sense. I am no fan of the MSM, but if they tried to play this up more there would be outrage about how they were painting a bullseye on troops for political purposes.

That said, I still don’t trust McCain and will not vote for him. I’ll rejoin the Republican Party when their values again reflect mine.

Stashiu3 on February 14, 2008 at 4:08 PM

And we appreciatively note McCain’s vote against the banning water boarding; he will not disarm the Commander in Chief, nor will he make America vulnerable to terrorism.

maverick muse on February 14, 2008 at 4:05 PM

Given his previous statements, what if the vote had been closer? He knew that it would still pass without him, so doing the politically expedient thing was easy.

Stashiu3 on February 14, 2008 at 4:14 PM

We’ll see a lot of pieces like this. Sorry, no sale here.

Valiant on February 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM

William Amos on February 14, 2008 at 2:25
Thanks, I needed that. It will make it a lot easier to vote for him after reading that.

SIJ6141 on February 14, 2008 at 6:37 PM

Thanks to William Amos for pointing us to that Cuffy link, and thanks to Cuffy for displaying the pic of JMac’s kids… the one where they’re older… and cuter!!!

He’s got my vote, God bless him and his kids for their service.

Disclaimer: He’s got my vote because he ain’t Obama OR Hillary!

Califemme on February 14, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Contrast with:

Barack Obama’s Global Tax Proposal Up for Senate Vote
——————————————————————————–

By Cliff Kincaid
Feb 12, 2008

A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

The bill, which is item number four on the committee’s business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn’t realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.

A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, “In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day.”

The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

The U.N. says that “The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion—or about 0.25% of their collective GNP.”

In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as “the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development.”

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272618845.shtml

funky chicken on February 14, 2008 at 8:26 PM

Here ya go, just to make your day.

DMeNTe on February 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM

‘interesting’ that this comes out pretty much after McCain is the nominee, and not during the primary. Worth pondering..

Reaps on February 14, 2008 at 10:48 PM

Mack the Knife!

silverfox on February 15, 2008 at 4:22 AM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.