Science Forums 2

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by questor

I have always wondered why a liberal would vote for someone he knew was going to increase his own tax bill and tax businesses so they could not hire more people?

At the risk of answering a disingenuous rhetorical question/talking point, I’d hazard that almost nobody, regardless of views on government, would willingly cast any vote for any person or referendum to increase the amount of federal, state, or local tax he or she pays.

Neither presidential candidate Barack Obama nor John McCain have, in any public statement or publication of which I’m aware, stated that they would raise the amount of federal income tax that I, personally, pay (for 2007, $12179). Comparing Barack Obama’s Comprehensive Tax Plan to public statements by John McCain (after some searching of JohnMcCain.com - McCain-Palin 2008, I’m unable to find a similar document), I find that Obama’s proposal would result in my federal tax being decreased by about $2,000, McCain’s, decreased by $600.

The primary reason for the difference between the two is the Obama plan’s tax refund of 10% of home mortgage interest. If I rented rather than owned a home, or did not have a home mortgage loan, my tax decrease would change to Obama’s, $500, McCain’s $600.

It’s important to note that the power to collect income taxes is not granted to the US President, but to the individual states, and to Congress, the latter due to 1913’s 16th Amendment. So when either of the presidential candidates promise a particular tax plan, they’re at best promising that they would promote and sign into law such a bill drafted by and ratified by Congress. My impression of the history of US federal tax law is that it is rare for Congress to oppose a federal tax decrease promoted - usually very publicly - by the President, and also rare for a President to veto subsequent increases in taxes proposed (but rarely very publicized) by Congress.

IMHO, the tax plans hinted at (for even Obama’s more documented proposal is too poorly detailed to be considered a true “plan”) by both presidential candidates are bad ideas, as both result in significant loss of federal revenue, without being paired with significant decrease in federal spending. According to Federal Budget Spending and the National Debt, at present, federal spending is exceeding revenue by nearly $1,000 billion/year, and the total national debt exceeds $10,000 billion. Although much of the current extraordinarily high deficit is due to the recent enacted ”financial system bailout” law, even without this, the growth of the national debt is thought by a consensus of most experts and non-experts alike to be unsustainable.

The only solution I can see to the current federal budget deficit is a dramatic reduction in federal spending. The only major area of the budget that I can see where such a reduction can be made without resulting in severe hardship for large portions of the American people is the US military.

As with income taxes, the power to raise and support a military (literally “armies” and “a navy” in the Constitution, but nearly unanimously accepted to apply to all branches of the US millitary) is given to the Congress. However, recent history has shown that Congress is usually strongly influenced by the President in its exercise of this power. Therefore, I think the next President’s attitude toward the funding of the military are critical for the wellbeing the American people, and to a lesser extent, the rest of the world’s.

My decision to vote for Obama rather than McCain is in large part based on my perception that he and the currently Democratic Party majority Congress are more likely to reduce military spending than McCain and the same or even a much different Congress.