Moving our economy forward
by Over recent days and weeks, America has been shocked by a continued, unfolding crisis involving some of the biggest names in the U.S. financial sector: Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, and now AIG. Americans are rightly concerned about our economy and the impact that this Wall Street-bred crisis will have on Main Streets across the country, especially with so many of us accepting the realities of close to $4-a-gallon gasoline, as well as higher prices on food and other items.
What’s clear is that the next president must implement a plan that will guarantee Americans a far greater measure of financial security than what we currently have. That means creating more and better-paying jobs, keeping fuel prices down and increasing domestic energy production, protecting Americans’ valued investments, and, of course, keeping the tax burden as low as possible. Those are all goals that would be met by implementing John McCain’s proposed policies and initiatives, which I would like to summarize here, today.
Let’s start by talking about what’s on everyone’s minds right now: The outright mess created by some of Wall Street’s biggest players and the poor management and casino culture evident there. The end result of this recklessness has been the threatening of millions of Americans’ retirement investments, savings, and insurance policies, which in hindsight looks frustratingly predictable. Two years ago, John McCain was warning that we were in trouble in this area, specifically with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While his warnings then went unheeded, the need for reform is now clear, and that reform needs to comprise three elements:
These are sound, comprehensive, and pragmatic steps that need to be taken — though, of course, the future strength of our economy, job growth, and prosperity for American families depends on far more than implementing just these reforms.
It’s also essential, if we aim to promote job growth and across-the-board prosperity, that we keep taxes low for working families and for small businesses, and keep spending in check so that we are not setting Americans up for tax increases in the future. Barack Obama’s economic proposals are problematic with regard to both of these points. On one hand, he wants to vastly increase federal spending by hundreds of billions over just one four-year term. On the other, he wants to raise taxes — and not just on the “very wealthy,” either, as he often claims. Small-business owners, many of whom bring in just over $250,000 and file under the personal income tax schedule, would be hit by Obama’s tax increases. Paying more in taxes will harm their ability to hire more workers, pay employees more, and offer them better benefits. With so many Americans hurting and concerned about the need for more and better jobs, hammering small businesses is exactly the wrong thing to do; yet it is exactly what Barack Obama implicitly pledges to do. By contrast, John McCain will cut their (and other Americans’) taxes, and keep spending in check while eliminating the most egregious wastes of taxpayer money — something Americans can all agree is a priority.
Another issue of great urgency right now is making sure Americans have access to affordable and high-quality health care. John McCain knows the escalating costs of health insurance year-after-year, on top of the sting of expensive grocery and energy bills, have been a tremendous burden for families. That is why he wants to put patients first, giving them control of health care dollars that are portable from one job to the next. He will provide a $5,000 refundable health care tax credit – effectively, cash – for families so they can either choose their employer-sponsored plan or shop around for a new one. This also helps small businesses that are being squeezed by health care bills to create new jobs, instead of cutting benefits and employees from the payroll. Insurance companies will compete for each and every plan they sell, resulting in a greater array of affordable, better quality options. There is also no reason why families cannot have the ability to buy insurance across state lines. Barack Obama wants to insert a government bureaucracy in health care decisions, limit families’ choices, and will do nothing to address the stunning increases in health care costs Americans face.
Energy also is a critical issue where America’s economic health is concerned, and John McCain also will take a comprehensive approach to overcoming our energy challenges. Critically, he has selected an energy expert — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — as his running mate and she is well-placed to help him implement and execute his “all-of-the-above” energy strategy, known as the Lexington Project. Pursuing this project will allow America to take steps to keep energy costs at bay and achieve energy independence. Three elements comprise this plan: allowing for more offshore oil exploration; pushing for the construction of more nuclear power plants and the development of clean, inexpensive nuclear power; and aggressively pursuing the development of more alternative, green energy (such as wind and solar) and more energy-efficient, green technology.
Barack Obama, unfortunately, opposes virtually every component of this project. He even dismissed the value in offering a $300 million prize to the innovator who succeeds in developing a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost, and power to leapfrog commercially available plug-in hybrids and electric cars. That’s something that has real potential to help break our country’s dependence on oil and reduce the amount we spend on fuel, which together with reforming Wall Street, spurring job growth and promoting prosperity, are critical challenges to meet head on, and without delay. That’s something that John McCain understands, and is committed to — and that is why I believe he, together with Gov. Palin as his second-in-command, is best-placed to lead and move our economy forward.
Nancy Pfotenhauer is a senior policy adviser on domestic issues for the John McCain presidential Campaign.
Posted In
BlogHer Conferences
- Home
- About Us
- BlogHer Community
- Conferences
- BlogHer Network
- Special Offers
- Contact Us
Follow us on Twitter:
@blogher @bloghersupport @blogherdeals
Become a Facebook Fan
© Copyright 2009 BlogHer | Terms of Service
Comments
Please Read This
Nancy,
Please read this and tell me if John McCain's plan is in fact going to adequately address SEC exemptions that led to this problem in the first place.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/regulatory-exem.html
Rachel Eden
So is McCain for regulation or not?
I'm a little confused here. McCain's entire career has been devoted towards deregulation.
In fact his support of Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 99 is arguably what contributed to this economic mess. And now suddenly McCain is for "instituting comprehensive regulations"?
So...what changed? How did he come around to the Democratic point of view after a lifetime of voting against it? Or is this just another thing a politician says when he's trying to get elected.
Mom-101
Nancy, Obama will lower
Nancy,
Obama will lower taxes for the majority of people. Are you really not aware of this? Or are you just lying about it in order to mislead people?
from CNN (http://is.gd/2mEf) and the Washington Post(http://is.gd/19XJ):
Obama's tax plan:
Over $2.9M: +$701,885
$603K and up: +$115,974
$227K-$603K: +$12
$161K-$227K: -$2,789
$112K-$161K: -$2,204
$66K-$112K: -$1,290
$38K-$66K: -$1,042
$19K-$38K: -$892
Under $19K: -$567
McCain on the other hand wants to decrease taxes on the very wealthy and give less tax cuts to people who make less. Even Alan Greenspan says McCain's plan won't work.
Over $2.9M: -$269,36
$603K and up: -$45,361
$227K-$603K: -$7,871
$161K-$227K: -$4,380
$112K-$161K: -$2,614
$66K-$112K: : -$1,009
$38K-$66K : -$319
$19K-$38K: : -$113
Under $19K: -$19
"... it is never sexist to question female ploiticians credentials" - what the real Hillary is probably thinking - and what all sensible people are saying.
Not much time left:
50 Days 'Til Change or More of the McSame?
10 Reasons Why Sarah Palin Should Not be the VP of the U.S.
2 Reasons Why Women Should Vote for Obama
Change or McSame.com
Debunking Nancy Pfotenhauer, McCain, and the
good ole boys
Which political party balances the budget and which always runs a deficit? Republicans or Democrats?
Here’s a hint: you can’t afford another Republican in the White House. If you look at history over the last decades you clearly see that the basic principles the republicans follow keep the federal budget in a deficit. There’s an easy to read chart showing this at www.rightistwrongs.com
In the last three decades, only President Clinton achieved a balanced budget and left his successor a significant surplus. However, that successor, George W Bush was able to spend the entire surplus and run us into a significant deficit in a year!
Americans should be outraged. It’s as if we got married with a bank account over $100 billion and at the end of the next year, our new spouse spent the entire account and additionally ran up credit card debt in excess of $150 billion! We would never trust this type of person with our life savings and security again. But at the height of the deficit (2004), with the most massive debt in history, over $400 billion, we re-elected the spouse who blew our $100 billion bank account.
Now McCain wants to implement “comprehensive regulations.” Mom-101 (above) is exactly right. He has always been a deregulator and contributed to this very issue and now will say anything to get elected.
Nancy admits above that Obama’s plan will only raise taxes on the folks who make over a quarter million dollars a year, but she labels them as the little guys, the small business owners. What she doesn’t tell you is that the little guy’s small business doesn’t tax the individual, only the company, as long as he’s properly incorporated.
She also refers to Obama’s plan spending “hundreds of billions” but refers to McCain’s Health Care Tax Credit with a figure of $5000. So what’s $5000 multiplied by 100 million american families (from 2000 census data)? I get $500 billion.
What she also doesn’t mention is the sweetheart deal that the republicans offered the nuclear industry to build new plants that will cost hundreds of billions. Here’s a point we do agree upon: new nuclear plants are a necessary part of America’s future energy policy. I worked in the nuclear industry for 15 years. The power companies who build new nuclear plants such as Constellation, Dominion, and Exelon will receive federally backed loans. Congress already approved $18.5 billion in guarantees and there will be much much more to come. Taxpayers are only on the hook if the companies default but a report issued by the Congressional Budget Office in 2003 estimates that could be up to 50%. Look up what these companies made last year, all made over $10 billion and some over $20 billion, but they can’t afford to finance their own business ventures? A nuclear plant costs $4 to $7 billion to build and John McCain wants 40 more. That’s $160 billion to $280 billion.
This fiscal irresponsibility has got to stop. It’s time for change. Vote for a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility!
Tina Righter
www.RightistWrongs.com
Tina, Clinton did have a
Tina, Clinton did have a Republican majority controlled House and Senate. He didn't balance the budget all by his lonesome.
Sometimes the ramifications from legislation that passes through one administration doesn't show up until the following administration so those kinds of charts and assumptions are misleading.
LePlusJeune - proud Independent
www.remodelle.net
Clinton's early House & Senate were Dem
majority
Many agree with you LePlusJeune. We hear many people talk about Clinton coasting "Reaganomics" through his term. But I think the consistent progress throughout his entire term speaks volumes. Every year shows an additional half billion bucks improvement in the economy. Check the chart: economy deficits for presidential terms (confession: sorry, I can't help it, enginerds are addicted to graphs)
Clinton did have a republican majority house and senate but not until later in his presidency. In the first years he had a democratic house and senate (103rd).
The congress and senate before his term (102nd) was also majority dem. All that data is avail at senate.gov with links to the house stats.
Tina Righter
www.RightistWrongs.com
6 of 8 Clinton years had a Republican
controlled Congress
He had a Democrat controlled House and Senate the first two years. Starting in 1994 it became Republican. So six years Republican controlled. Clinton ran deficits until 1998. The five budget surpuses in the last 40 years were in 1969 (Nixon), 1998 (Clinton), 1999 (Clinton), 2000 (Clinton), 2001 (Bush).
LePlusJeune - proud Independent
www.remodelle.net
But don't miss the point (your point)
But that was your point, no? Your point above was that a republican controlled house's effects will be seen years after. My point was the house & senate were democratic majority before Clinton (102nd) and when he first became pres (103rd). Their effects were seen after - all the years of positive progress.
Also every year of Clinton's terms, the deficit was decreased (and then the surplus increased) by about $50 billion (I think I said .5 above, as if its not confusing enough, huh?). So every year, we spent less than we made. No other pres' terms achieved such continuous progress. it was continuous improvement, every year. Those were good times in the economy. We need it again.
Tina Righter
www.RightistWrongs.com
Republicans took control of
Republicans took control of both the house and Senate in 1994. The Clinton years didn't show a surplus until 1998 - four years later. You could say it was the first two years of the Clinton administration with a Democrat controlled House but the House had been a Democrat majority for the 40 years prior to that, too...with the last surplus being 1969. You'd think if it was because of all the good efforts of the Democrat controlled Congresses we'd have seen surpluses for decades. We didn't.
Put it this way, the only thing that stands out as different during the Clinton years was that Republicans gained control of the House for the first time in 40 years. Admittedly, a few things could have happened to produce that surplus. Republican reigned in spending. The largest tax increase ever from the early years of the Clinton administration could have produced more revenue. A combination of the two? Or, was it that capital gains taxes were higher and intake was higher because of the dot com bubble? It's never as simple as the charts make it out to be.
Also, the National debt still went up over a trillion dollars during the Clinton years. I think some people hear about the Clinton surplus, especially when they talk about "squandering the surplus", and think we paid off all our bills and set money aside somewhere. Oh, no, no, no. Not at all. We may have spent less than we took in for a few years but we surely didn't pay our overdue bills. Imagine running your credit cards to the max and then realizing you've put too much on credit so you decide it's time to live within your means and only pay cash for everything you buy. Only you leave that large credit card balance out there and decide never to pay the bill.
LePlusJeune
www.remodelle.net
Wow. I bow down to you
Wow. I bow down to you rightiswrongs and Trisha! That is some MIGHTY tight data!
Want to know your tax cut?
The tables were rolled into an interactive calculator on ObamaTaxCut.com.
It's a nifty little application.
And, um, Nancy? John
And, um, Nancy?
John McCain's economic advisor, Phil Gramm, kicked off this mess by pushing through the dismantling of the post-Depression regulations that kept the market from gambling with deposit bank's money.
He pushed it through a Republican House and a Republican Senate in 1999. Clinton couldn't veto the bill since it passed by a 2/3 majority vote.
Here is the vote for the Gramm-Leach-Biley Bill in 1999.
You know, you can't get MORE factual than the Senate's own website, can you?
In fact, every Democrat present voted against the deregulation except for one.
McCain, Gramm and other Republicans have their fingerprints all over this financial crisis. I highly doubt we can trust them to pull us out when they were the ones who put us there.
Biden Did Vote For It
That is only the first rollcall vote. Biden did in fact vote for it in the Senate after the House revised it. Version dated Nov 4, 1999
Here are links to the Congressional website:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s106-900#votes
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1999-354
As I mentioned below in answer to your other
comment...
The bill passed during Record Vote No. 105 with Biden voting "no" and McCain voting "yes".
The links you present here are related to the subsequent "conference report" on the differences between the House and Senate on the amendments to the bill. THAT was Record Vote No. 354.
So, please check Record Vote No 105 for the actual vote on Gramm-Leach-Biley.
Conference Report
I guess that depends on how a person looks at the purpose of a 'conference report'.
It is normal for a senator to vote 'nay' for a piece of proposed legislation until it comes back from the House renegotiated and with extras added in, no? In this case, Gramm-Leach-Bliley came back with all sorts of add-ons, like a proposal for minted commemorative astronaut coins {{{rolls eyes, lol}}}. I looked over the conference report online at the link I gave you and it's unbelievable what was added in. It was then that Biden voted for it. He could have voted nay the second time around. Why didn't he? Some senators did. Sure, it wouldn't have made a difference because the bill passed with a 2/3 majority, but still, if he was so against it what about principle?
Conference Report
Gramm-Leach-Biley had already been approved in both houses from that May vote. The only formality left was for language to be amended by the conferees (representatives from both the House and Senate).
The 4 November vote was not a vote on the merits of the bill. It was a vote on the language of the bill. My impression is that the disagreements over the final language were related to Consumer Privacy Protections.
Voting against the Conference Report stonewalls a bill, but it doesn't kill it. This bill was already stonewalled by Democrats who disagreed with it from May through November. Congress was getting ready for their holiday break, something final had to be decided.
Continued stonewalling would have destroyed any expectation of reciprocity in the future for bills that the Democrats were supporting. That is why Conference Reports are rarely declined if they have already been passed by the majority.
How does reciprocity work in Congress? The relationships between congressional representatives are what gets legislation pushed through the legislative branch. It's often a case of "lose the battle, win the war" because of the complexity of the process and the number of votes required.
If I am a Senator and I know a bill is already a done deal because, after the votes on the merits of the bill, I am in the minority, I might vote "yea" to the Conference in order to be able to say to someone later, "Hey, remember that time that I didn't stonewall your legislation? Well, you need to reciprocate and not stonewall mine." So, I'll agree to let this bill, which has already passed, keep going. But remember that when I am coming to you later asking you not to stonewall MY bill.
Welcome to Capitol Hill 101. :)
And, yes, that sounds like
And, yes, that sounds like Washington as usual. That is some kind of change they are talking about!
ObamaTaxCut.com
Wow Miteegirl, that really is a neat application. I clicked on all the salaries to get a feel for it. I like when it tells you your taxcut and then tells you in LOUD RED that McCain would tax you $450 more.
try it
Tina Righter
www.RightistWrongs.com
I Have Big Questions About McCain's Economic
Plan
Perhaps you can help me. I went over his plan (as posted on the McCain website) line by line and have been trying to discuss it with a McCain supporter since yesterday morning. Unfortunately, everyone seems to be very busy.
Here are the issues which concern me most:
Well, I had a few more questions, but those are my major concerns. If you'd like more details including links back to the original sources, stop by my post from yesterday. I really want to have a conversation about McCain's economic plan and I'm waiting to hear from one of his supporters.
Tacoma Mama
this is helpful
Thanks for the explanation. Tacoma Mama and Miteegirl, can you help explain some things to me, because you both seem to have a better grasp and more historical context.
Is it my imagination, or did the de-regulation in the Reagan years contribute to the Savings and Loan crisis, and to the new phenomenon of exorbitant CEO salaries? Prior to 1980, it seemed that the disparity in income from middle management, upper management and the executive suite was not as wide, am I remembering this correctly?
When did we start seeing so many mulit-millionaires with sweet stock deals that insulated them from real people? Wasn't it a by product of de-regulation?
I guess what I'm looking for is a sort of tutorial and timeline that shows cause and effect. It seems that the regulations helped protect consumers and "the little guys" from the greed and instant gratification of the executive teams in various corporations, who seemed to be going for the quick and exorbitant payouts at the expense of worker's pensions, salaries and health care benefits.
Can either or both of you shed some light here.
I think that when we forget our history, we're doomed to repeat it....
Thanks,
Bank Deregulation Started in the Carter Years
Believe me, I lived through it, and it wasn't pretty! Mortgage rates of 21% were pretty common then. Yikes!
He signed the "Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980" (link - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33206)
LePlusJeune - proud Independent
www.remodelle.net
An Interesting Project
That had always been my understanding of the history but I had never actually looked up the details.
I am definitely not an expert in bank regulation so I am learning as I go, this is pretty raw, with links, so that you all can go and look and read also. I am using some Wikipedia links and some text lifted from Wiki, (which has a license which allows this) because the authors do a good job of explanation the legislation. If you do not trust Wiki and want to read further, they have cited original sources.
Again, much of this is not my words, they came from Wikipedia, via a GNU Free Documentation License, but I have put them together from several entries into one timeline. So, in the spirit of that license please pass this on and alter or play with it as you please, just be sure to attribute it to me and Wikipedia.
Here are a few pieces, maybe more coming:
- 1933 (following the 1929 economic collapse) The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation, including Regulation Q, which put a limit on the interest rates that banks could pay, including a rate of zero on demand deposits (checking accounts).
- 1956 the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 is passed, preventing financial institutions from owning non-financial
corporations. This is significant because this restriction prevents an
ownership structure similar to Japan or Germany in which banks own the
majority of large industrial enterprises. It also prevents bank holding companies headquartered in one state from acquiring a bank in another state. At this time, both chambers of congress have a democratic majority.
- 1980 Congress Passes the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, giving the Federal Reserve
greater control over non-member banks. Its main purpose was to force
all banks to abide by the Fed's rules. It also allowed banks to merge.
Its secondary purpose was to allow credit unions and savings and loans to offer checkable deposits. The law also removed the power of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors under the Glass-Steagall Act and Regulation Q to set the interest rates of savings accounts. Congress at this time has a Democratic majority and Democratic president Jimmy Carter signed the bill into law, in a climate of increasing pressure for de-regulation by the right. (But yes, Dems were definitely in the majority at the time.)
- 1980 Ronald Reagan is elected. Promises to fix the growing recession through supply side economics, freeing up more money for the economy through de-regulation and lower taxes. Also known as "trickle down" theory - by putting more money in the hands of companies and the wealthy, prosperity will trickle down to the middle class.
- 1982 The Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act is passed, de-regulating the savings and loan industries and creating Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs). At the time this law was passed, Republicans had gained control of the Senate, although Democrats still reigned in the House of Representatives.
- 1986-1991 - Savings and Loan Crisis. 747 Savings and Loan associations fail. Between 1986 and 1991, the number of new homes constructed per year
drop from 1.8 million to 1 million, the lowest rate since World War II. While this is going on, the US also experienced the stock market crash of 1987.
- 1989 the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act is passed by a Democratic majority congress. It established the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) to close hundreds of insolvent thrifts and provided funds pay out insurance to their depositors. It moved thrift regulatory authority from the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) (within the United States Department of the Treasury) to regulate thrifts.
- 1994 Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 repeals the provisions of the Bank Holding Act of 1956 preventing interstate bank acquisitions, under certain circumstances. At this time both branches of congress have a democratic majority, but democrats were under the gun as the house fell to the republicans that election season.
- 1999 The Gramm Leach Blilely Act removes most of the remaining provisions of the Glass Steagal Act of 1933 and 1935, opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. The act allowed allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. The justification was that individuals usually put more money into
investments when the economy is doing well, but they put most of their
money into savings accounts
when the economy turns bad. With the new Act, they would be able to do
both 'savings' and 'investment' at the same financial institution,
which would be able to do well in both good and bad economic times.
Economist Robert Kuttner (among others) has criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. Economists Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have made similar criticisms, arguing that while "in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC
deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have
made "perfect sense" as a legitimate act of deregulation, under the
present fiat monetary system it "amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly".
The Gramm-Leach Blilely Act was passed by a congress with Republican majorities in both houses, and signed into law by a democratic president.
Tacoma Mama
There should be an award...
Honestly. I'm gone for, what? 3-4 hours? And I come back to this masterpiece?
YOU. ARE. AWESOME.
Just Wrote A Really Long Response, Flagged
as Spam
:( Maybe an administrator can dig it up, quick? I spent a long time writing it.
Tacoma Mama
Got it
Lots of links tend to get flagged as spam. Sorry about that! :-)
~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager
Flamingo House Happenings
Oh, thank you.
Scared me.
Tacoma Mama
A quick question
"Small-business owners, many of whom bring in just over $250,000 and file under the personal income tax schedule, would be hit by Obama’s tax increases."
As a small-business owner, I was curious if you are referring to owners with $250K profit or $250 gross receipts. Because if you bring in $250K gross, and then you hit it with all of your expenses, are you "hit" by the Obama plan?
Liz Rizzo
I blog at Everyday Goddess.
Small Business Owners
I'd like a solid answer to this also:
"Small-business owners, many of whom bring in just over $250,000 and file under the personal income tax schedule, would be hit by Obama’s tax increases."
It is my understanding that it is $250 gross receipts. Crazy, isn't it?
Your fellow small business owner
Leplusjeune
www.remodelle.net
Sounds like Mom to Gio's
Sounds like Mom to Gio's accountant is saying it is after business expenses are deducted, but let's be clear about the different set-ups for a small business.
I have a small business. It is an LLC with two partners. We are consultants. We don't manufacture goods, so we have no raw materials costs. I have an office in my house. We have relatively limited operating costs and limited capital investment. We are a knowledge business with some contractor costs, some business development costs and some tech costs.
My neighbor down the street runs a little restaurant. She has 3 full time employees and 5 part time employees. She has to purchase food, equipment, materials. She has a kitchen and dining space, has to pay for more insurance than I do, has higher operating costs, etc.
Perhaps we both take in the same amount of gross income per year. That doesn't change the fact the we are very, VERY different small businesses. And that the net income that we draw out of our businesses is very different and that it should be taxed differently.
So, when we generalize and talk about how either candidate wants to treat small business, it would help to hear what KIND of small business is being discussed.
If you or I are a one-person small business and filing under the personal income tax schedule, I have no problem with you or I paying more if your net income after business deductions is higher than $200,000 if you are single or $250,000 if you are married.
Why? Because in the case of my small business, I am not employing people thereby putting people to work and generating more benefits for the community. I am operating only slightly differently than I was when I was a highly paid consultant in the Fortune 500. With the benefits that I get to set my own hours, just have clients instead of a client AND a boss, and have less corporate red tape to wade through. My only BIG setback having my type of small business is the cycles (I don't make an every two weeks paycheck) and having to pay my own large health insurance costs. Which Obama-Biden is proposing I would get tax breaks on under their plan.
More about McCain's misleading statements about Obama's treatment of small businesses at Factcheck.org.
You are right to understand
You are right to understand the difference between a small business that employs people and one that doesn't. My own employs several people. Our operating budget is tight and the slightest change could send people to the unemployment line, especially, in this economy. The problem, though, is that the tax code is never that friendly where it can discern differences.
Also, I understand that Obama's plan provides for health insurance deductions but someone is going to have to make up the tax difference for that deduction. Who do you think it'll be? Health insurance is pre-tax income now. Additionally, employer health insurance payments for employees are 100% operating expense deductions now. And that 'capital gains' deduction for small business Obama keeps talking about...how many small businesses pay capital gains? Hardly any.
I don't know, it all seems like a lot of pie in the sky fluff talk to me. Granted, I get that impression from both sides. I have no dog in this fight, I'm an Independent.