What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

Recent Comments

A critical choice

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 1
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Tomorrow, Americans will head to the polls and elect the next president of the United States.  The choice they will make is critically important, because the two candidates present very different paths for the United States, especially where the economy is concerned.  As a former U.S. Treasurer, taking the wrong economic path is something that deeply concerns me.  However, it also is something that should concern all Americans, including millions of women, who often take responsibility for managing their family’s budget while they themselves are working hard to get ahead.  The next president needs to have a plan to grow our economy, create jobs, and generate wealth for all Americans, and I am confident that John McCain offers exactly that, whereas Barack Obama does not.

John McCain’s economic plan is focused on keeping taxes low for working families, ensuring fiscal restraint so they can stay that way, and reforming our tax system to make America more competitive.  As it stands, Americans are hurting in the face of an economic downturn, and our corporate tax rate stands as the second highest in the industrialized world, forcing too many businesses and the jobs they create overseas.  John McCain wants to fix that by bringing the corporate rate down to 25 percent from 35 percent, while Barack Obama offers no similar proposals.  What Obama promises to do is hit millions of Americans in their pocketbooks when they can least afford it, in order to “spread the wealth around,” presumably via the more than $1.2 trillion in federal spending he has planned for just one presidential term alone.  Over time, it’s become increasingly clear that it won’t just be the super-rich made to pay for it all, if Obama is elected.  Whereas he once indicated that anyone who earned less than $250,000 would receive a tax cut, we learned last week that in truth, lower taxes only will be in the cards for those making less than $150,000 (per Joe Biden) or $120,000 (per Bill Richardson).  In all likelihood, though, the final figure will be even lower: In 2003, Obama defined working families deserving of tax cuts only as those “making $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 a year.”

That comprises many Americans, to be sure.  But it won’t cover their employers, including those struggling to keep people on their payrolls in tough economic times and millions of small-business owners working to get ahead and with the American Dream just within their sights.  That’s something to think about before heading to the polls.  Americans have the option of voting for a candidate whose policy would lower taxes, enshrine fiscal discipline, and promote job growth, economic progress and wealth creation across the board, and that candidate is John McCain.  I support him strongly.

Rosario Marin is the former mayor of Huntington Park, California and served as the 41st Treasurer of the United States between 2001 and 2003.

  • 1
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Kim Pearson 5 pts

Hi Rosario,

I appreciate the expertise you bring to this conversation. I have a few questions:

1. Would you please explain how an off-hand comments by Biden or Richardson represent a change in Obama's stated tax proposal? It seems that you ought to at least acknowledge that the Obama campaign say ( http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/pa... )s that they still intend to maintain the $250,000 threshhold they originally proposed ( http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/ ). 

2. According to this BusinessWeek article ( http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/conten... ), Sen. McCain changed his plan Oct. 31 to include a permanent 50% cut in capital gains taxes. Could you comment on the thinking behind this, and the impact on the deficit?

3. A Sept. 15 analysis ( http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cf... ) of both the Obama and (pre-Oct. 31) Mc Cain proposals conclude that both would add to the national debt, and that McCain's plan would incur even greater debt than Obama's. This article ( http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candi... ) from last Junereports that the McCain campaign would close the deficit by eliminating Congressional earmarks.However, if the Tax Policy Center is correct in its finding that the McCain plan would cut tax revenues by an additional $4.2 trillion, how will cutting earmarks suffice to close the gap?

4. Finally, do you have any thoughts about how an economic slowdown over the next 18 months, as well as the cost of the bailout and our military commitments will affect either candidate's ability to make good on any of their proposals?

Thanksin advance!

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|