AP reported on McCain's tax claims but not how he would pay for them
A July 24 Associated Press article by James Prichard reported that Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ) "originally opposed Bush's tax cuts, but he advocates extending them now because he says repealing them would amount to a tax increase." The article also reported that McCain "said Democrats who hold a narrow majority in Congress want to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars by repealing President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts." The article added that "if elected president, he [McCain] would repeal the alternative minimum tax [AMT] and keep government spending in check using vetoes and line-item-veto authority." But the article gave no indication that Prichard had asked McCain, or that McCain had spoken, about how he proposed to make up for the decrease in revenue that would result from repealing the AMT and extending the Bush tax cuts.
President Bush signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 after it passed the Republican-controlled Congress. The tax cuts are set to expire in 2010 absent congressional action; any action to extend them would require finding money to pay for the extension or allowing the deficit to grow as the latest White House and congressional budget projections reflect. A February 7, 2006, Washington Post article about Bush's five-year budget projections reported that "[i]n 2011, the last year of the White House's projection, the deficit would again begin to rise, to $205 billion, reflecting the cost of extending Bush's tax cuts beyond their 2010 expiration date." On May 17, the Post reported that in making their recent budget proposal, congressional Democrats "assume some of Bush's signature tax cuts would expire on schedule in 2010, prompting Republicans to accuse them of plotting one of the biggest tax increases in history."
This is not the first time that the media have allowed McCain to talk about cutting taxes without challenging him on how he would make up for the lost revenue. For instance, during the May 3 Republican presidential debate on MSNBC, moderator Chris Matthews asked each Republican candidate "to mention a tax you'd like to cut, in addition to the Bush tax cuts, keeping them in effect." McCain responded: "The alternative minimum tax is obviously eating Americans alive, and it's got to be repealed." McCain did not explain how he would keep the Bush tax cuts while repealing the AMT, nor did Matthews ask. From the May 3 debate:
MATTHEWS: OK, let's start with an enjoyable down-the-line, OK? I want each candidate to mention a tax you'd like to cut, in addition to the Bush tax cuts, keeping them in effect.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Senator McCain?
McCAIN: I'd give the president of the United States the line-item veto on these bills as well as spending bills. The alternative minimum tax is obviously eating Americans alive, and it's got to be repealed.
Another one -- another one I think is important is a $3,000 tax credit for people to be able to purchase health insurance. So low-income Americans will have access to health care, which is an amazing and difficult problem today. And a simpler, flatter fair tax so that Americans don't have to spend $140 billion, as they just did last April, to prepare their tax returns.
The Hill reported on June 8 that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who also advocates repeal or scaling back of the AMT, "has insisted that a repeal should be revenue-neutral," and Senate Finance Committee chairman Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) "said it was important to make sure the AMT repeal does not make the budget deficit worse." From the June 8 article in The Hill:
[Sen. Charles] Grassley [R-IA] has repeatedly argued that an AMT repeal should not be subject to pay-go rules because that kind of volume of AMT revenue was never supposed to be collected in the first place. The TRC [Tax Relief Coalition] praises him for that position in its letter, which argues that imposing new taxes to pay for AMT repeal could hurt economic growth.
But Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) has insisted that a repeal should be revenue-neutral, which means it must be paid for by other tax increases or spending reductions. Rangel has also suggested that increasing taxes on the wealthy could offset the AMT repeal.
The TRC letter also praised President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which it said spurred economic growth. Most Democrats are not inclined to extend those tax cuts when they expire in 2011.
At the beginning of the year, Baucus said he would look for possible offsets when he and Grassley introduced legislation repealing the AMT. He also said it was important to make sure the AMT repeal does not make the budget deficit worse.
A similar AP article on July 23 about McCain's speech also failed to provide context for McCain's response and did not address how McCain intended to pay for the repeal of the AMT.
From the July 24 AP article:
Republican John McCain says that if elected president, he would repeal the alternative minimum tax and keep government spending in check using vetoes and line-item-veto authority.
[...]
McCain said he would fight for line-item veto power, which the Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional, but wouldn't hesitate to use the veto as it now exists to crack down on spending.
"Give me the pen, and I'll veto every single pork-barrel bill Congress sends me, and if they keep sending them to me, I'll use the bully pulpit to make the people who are wasting your money famous," he said.
McCain, long a crusader against so-called pork barrel spending, said Democrats who hold a narrow majority in Congress want to raise taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars by repealing President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
McCain originally opposed Bush's tax cuts, but he advocates extending them now because he says repealing them would amount to a tax increase.
"I believe we should keep income and investment taxes low by making the tax cuts currently on the books permanent," he said. "I think we should protect Americans from partisan Democrat tax increases by requiring a three-fifths majority vote. But if I am president, the same veto pen that works on pork-barrel spending will send those partisan taxes right back to the Congress."
Jason Moon, a spokesman for the Michigan Democratic Party, chided McCain.
"McCain's top fundraiser (Tom Loeffler) and his new campaign manager (Rick Davis) are both lobbyists who made their fortunes lobbying for exactly the type of pork projects McCain is now railing against," Moon said. "This is exactly the type of hypocrisy that he brought to his do-anything-to-win campaign, the same tactics that drove the 'Straight Talk Express' straight into a ditch."
The Straight Talk Express is the name of McCain's presidential campaign bus from his unsuccessful 2000 bid for the White House. Rolled out earlier this year in an effort to help reinvigorate his current campaign, the bus has been parked again because of a lack of money that has also led to dozens of layoffs in his campaign.
Economic Club member and McCain supporter Pat Dwyer, 57, of St. Joseph, said he wanted to see how well the senator conveyed his message Monday.
"I think some people don't understand where he stands on some things," Dwyer said.
Proof that once again, politicians will say anything to get elected. And reporters are slacking off when they don't call them on it.
GOP politicians have been getting a free ride for far too long from the corporate-controlled media.
How is he going to pay for tax cuts? MMFA, don't you read any of the dittohead posts here? Tax cuts increase revenues tremendously, so the best way to pay for tax cuts is, obviously, with more tax cuts.
I hate having to spoon feed this stuff to the reality-based community.
Why stop there? Let's not pay any taxes at all, then watch the revenues skyrocket.
By "make up" for the decreased tax revenue, I'm sure MMfA means "What is going to be cut or no longer earmarked", right?
No. Cutting the budget is only one way to pay for a cut of the AMT. Another would be to increase taxes somewhere else. However, if it's the Bush method of tax cuts, then nothing will be cut from the budget; i.e., the deficit will simply increase.
The thing is, if you spend less, then you don't need as many tax revenues. I think that was McCains point, he would pay for the tax cuts by spending less.
You can balance the budget with fewer taxes and less wasteful spending.
Exactly. Also, as is common sense, when taxes are lowered for everyone revenues to the government actually increase. As more money is back in the hands of those that earned it, reinvenstment occurs and jobs are created - expanding the tax base.
That's what I was getting at.
Too bad there's $400 billion war to worry about.
Exactly. Cut taxes and increase government revenues.
So why isn't the war paid in full?
Excessive, wasteful and abusive government spending.
Hey, what's the problem? As long as China, Japan, and France have money to give us, who cares how much things cost?
Cut more taxes, and party on, dudes...
"Cut taxes and increase government revenues."
Sorry, Tommy, but that's a classic Conservative fallacy. It's called "post hoc ergo propter hoc". There is no evidence that cutting taxex causes revenues to increase, since federal revenues also increase after a tax increase. In other words, federal revenues are always increasing, regardless of the tax rate.
There's nothing fellacious about it. It's common sense. If you put more money back into the economy through lower taxes, then that money is used to invest, companies grow and the economy is expanded - where more jobs are then created, increasing the tax base. I know that doesn't square with some liberals love of high taxes, but that's the way it is, nonetheless.
One doesn't need to speak Latin to understand that.
Neither side can prove its case. Since tax revenues rise regardless of the tax rate, it's impossible to prove what the revenues would have been if the tax rate were different under the same economic circumstances. If you want to prove your position with logic, then you would have to demonstrate that higher taxes make revenues go down...which you cannot do.
I have no problem with defaulting to lower taxes, unless we're running up a huge deficit, or putting an unnecessary war on a credit card.
So, Tommy, one thing that's always bugged me: Once the tax dollars get spent by the government, where do they go?
Neon, I understand your point, but higher taxes and increased govt. spending is at odds with a growing capitalistic economy. We don't stimulate the economy by taking excessive amounts of money from those that create jobs and directly impact the ecomony and letting the wasteful arm of the government take control of it. It makes no sense.
Your vision of a government funded economy is not one I share.
It's not a "government funded economy", it's a "production based economy" in which the government is just another consumer (actually it's the purchasing agent for the public), and it's not at odds with captialism at all. What worries people is when the profits for government purchases leave the country. Those outoging profits sometimes take the form of interest to foreign governments for money borrowed. That should be your main concern, not the tax rate.
What should be your concern is if you continue to raise taxes on corporations to some astronomical level, they will just make their profits elsewhere to relieve themselves of paying higher taxes. And then where will you be?
I'll probably be right here, doing the same thing, trying to figure out which topic you'd care to discuss. Astronomic tax rates? Corporate taxes? When did these come up?
We're not talking astronomic rates, just rates which help create a balanced budget. As far as corporations paying taxes at all, they barely do now. And yet corporations are fleeing the country right now, to take advantage of cheaper foreign labor and to escape federal regulations.
So don't ask me where I'd be IF these corporations left the country. Ask yourself how much stronger the Homeland economy and dollar would be if we weren't trillions in debt.
I see your point. Federal tax revenues are always increasing whether tax rates are up or down. Seems kind of silly to want them to be higher then, doesn't it?
That is beside the point. The truth is that the old Republican saw about lower taxes causing revenues to rise is a myth...a lie. If you can't sell tax cuts on their merits, why lie about it? Sometimes, higher taxes could be justified...like when we're AT WAR!
Wouldn't it be better to pay for Bush's war now, instead of shoving it off on our children and their children?
Republicans should just say that lower taxes stimulates the economy. That would be more accurate. I think it's very tricky to know if they actually generate more tax revenue or not. I've read studies that they do not entirely pay for themselves.
It's a myth only because you disagree with it. As for selling low taxes based on some nefarious reasons, well, I can think of dozens of sensible reasons for low taxes and increased government responsibility aside from the increased revenues they produce.
Actually Tommy what you are referencing is the Laffer Curve. The idea behind the Laffer curve is that there would be no revenue through taxes at either 0% or 100% tax rates. Somewhere between these two extremes is a point at which state tax revenue would decrease at higher nominal rates of taxation. However, there is no known point where this shift takes place. Reagan hypothesized that this point was below then current tax rates, so pushed for tax reductions. However, since taxevenues have increased even with increased nominaltax rates the question is begged on whether or not this rate is above current nominal tax rates. This is asomewhat long explanation to deal with the theoretical concept that is being skirted around.
And I can promise you that our tune would be the same whether there was a war on or not.
Exactly. Whenever low taxes are advocated by a conservative, the left always answers "then how are you going to pay for your war?" As has been said many times, cut government wasteful spending, cut taxes and revenues to the govt. increase.
But we have the war, we have the tax cuts to pay for it. When is the whole plan going to come together?
When? About the same time our occupation of Iraq brings peace there.
Ouch. 'Stay the course' I guess.
Glad you two have it all figured out.
:)
when taxes are lowered for everyone revenues to the government actually increase
Not always...and not just when approaching the extreme example of a 0% rate. There exists an optimum tax rate at which revenues are maximized, but any changes lower or higher reduce revenue. In practice, determining the optimum rate for a period of time is problematic.
If you want more detail, Wikipedia's Laffer Curve article is a good summary. Personally, I like Martin Gardner's Neo-Laffer Curve discussed in that article.
You're correct Christian. I would clarify my statements to ensure that I do not support a 0% income tax.
I get the feeling that your reading comprehension is lacking.
Wasteful spending? Like government investment in the personal computer, the invention of the laser, the microchip, the internet, MRI technology, TAXOL the cancer drug?
Don't like taxes? Stop paying them and drop out. Build your own roads with your tax cut. Build your own power grid with your tax cut. The rest of us would be happy to jettison your parasitic arses.
Our infrastructure is rotting and it won't get fixed by the private sector and if it is, it will be paid for by externalized costs to the consumer anyway.
The truth is, when tax investments aren't being demonized by the YOYO's (the You're On Your Own crowd), tax funds are only invested as effectively as we the people demand. It's our government, our money and when we hold our politicians to account our country is better for it. That's what taxes are about; shared reward.
So stop sniping and get involved because, like it or not, democracy is a group activity not an individual effort. It's a matter of taking the collaborative lead for our elected officials to follow.
Your post makes it sound like you don't think there is any government wasteful spending. The key word is WASTEFUL. Clearly, the things you mentioned were not. But nice tirade.
Then stop speaking in abstractions an pony up all the evidence of wasteful spending. Furthermore, do we or do we not have the power to correct the spending habits of our politicians?
Yes, we do have the power. Stop sending them anymore excess money, boom - done.
And by the way, it isn't up to US to highlight their wasteful spending. It's up to THEM to show us every dime of our money is spent wisely and cautiously.
You seem to forget whose money it is, so now you're reminded.
In the 'here and now', we don't have the power to send them less money. We're told how much to pay, and either we pay it, or we face penalties.
Maybe in the long term it's possible that the power of the vote can elect politicians that are true budget hawks that don't bow to special interest lobbies and can clean up DC for real, but I'm not holding my breath.
As long as money has it's lure, we're screwed. Last I heard, congressional lobbyists outnumber elected members by 65 to 1. I don't see this ****ed up situation changing any time soon.
In general, I would say we do not. Because everyone we elect spends more and more. Examples of government waste are readily available on the web, some of it is in the eye of the beholder I'm sure.
Here's a Top 10 list from the Consservative side. I'm sure the Progressives have their own.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1840.cfm
Good list, Bruce. Add a couple of items, just for fodder for Roundhouse 1) DOE has control of more vehicles than employees. 2) USDA has more employees than there are farmers. 3) Food stamps that allow the purchase of soda and chips (junk food).
Roads? Gas taxes and property taxes (have no personal problem with them.
Electrical transmission? Line item on my electrial bill, should be for everyone. User fees are not a problem.
Post Office? Never enough revenue, but I'm sure there are cuts that can be made.
Slow down the growth of entitlement payments, government programs, etc to just below the rate of inflation. If tax cuts expire in 2010 and most of us will face a pay cut, shouldn't it apply to everyone?
Nice laundry lists fellas. I asked for it, though.
So, what do all of the items have in common? Poor stewardship, lack of oversight and non-transparent accounting. I don't think this stuff can be mended by leaders who do not believe government has an appropriate role to play as problem solver.
Republican leadership is content to let problems fester in these agencies and point to the rot as a reason to end them. Liberals are the opposite.
Yes, liberals are one to take a failing program and fix it by throwing more money at it. Instead of eliminating it altogether or demanding accountability, budget tightening and means testing, just fund it some more.
Can you imagine a business operating like that? No.
That's pretty cynical and a good example of the failure of conservatives to see beyond money.
The liberal way is to throw competent people at the problem, get the best and brightest to pool their collective wisdom and actually do some work that benefits the common good.
Nurturance instead of punishment, my friend.
I guess it's not to hard to nurture and soothe something that's failing when it's on somebody else's dime. I can do that too.
More cynicism?
It's too bad you abhor the principles the framer's of our Constitution cherished; shared risk and shared reward.
Shared reward? You mean income redistribution. Ya, I missed that.
Were it not for the politics of resentment, I don't think there would be a Republican Party.
Honestly, Republicans resent anything that helps another. Republicans think they acquired everything all by themselves, that the interconnected efforts of their fellow man had no bearing on their personal outcome.
But enough with the Republican perversion of capitalism. The Republicans turned their backs on the middle class and ceded their fundamental responsibility to promote the general welfare. They handed their oath-sworn duty off to the money hungry fat cats of the private sector. We are losing the middle class under the weight of the Republican winner take all economy.
In the absence of a shared risk and shared reward safety net, failure in the market leads to ruin and effectively bars the doors to market participation.
RE: your post above regarding poor stewardship, I agree. I will also point out that it goes back a long time in government, not just the last 6+ years. Entrenched bureaucrats, that seldom answer to the public, or our servants in Congress, are ultimately responsible for much of the waste. Rules that are written so that government agencies are encouraged to spend all their budget in a given fiscal cycle or face the loss of some funding in the future. There is no good way set up to reward frugal departments. Go back to "baseline" budgeting where every line item must be justified instead of allowing agencies to request a certain % increase each year (to cover inflation, etc). Sure, those extra $ largely circulate through our economy, but wouldn't they be better spent reducing the deficit so that we can get more productive bang for the buck in the future. It appears much of the interest money is going off-shore and that certainly ain't helping our economy.
I'll let you in on a little secret Roundhouse. I'm a Federal Employee.
No kidding.
So I certainly understand our government's role in trying to make things better. With accountability, which is where the Wasteful Spending part comes in.
Spoken from somebody in the thick of the trenches on government's wasteful happypants way of spending our money foolishly. Thanks Bruce. I know of several other local, state and federal employees who share your view of the waste, in their respective departments alone.
Glad you are there, hope you have some influence.
You're a federal employee? Keep voting Republican and maybe your job will be eliminated in the next volley of spending cuts ; )
It's different with you though, right? You do good, efficient work while everybody else just hangs out and sucks up all those tax funded federal benefits. Right?
The Catch-22 with the Federal Government is certainly on the accountability side. And the obvious reason is that our government can run a deficit like we usually do. Of course we need strong government services in times of crisis like Katrina or droughts or hurricanes or any number of problems that occur. I'm not putting that stuff in with wasteful spending.
But you have to agree that the government basically has a bottomless pocket, we can spend without accountability and that is not true with private corporations or small businesses or personal finances for that matter. The state of Minnesota must have a balanced budget which I think forces some fiscal responsibility. I understand why the Federal Government doesn't operate that way but it's just way too easy to spend other peoples money, and our government is certainly an expert on that.
The government is so massive that it's very difficult for it to run efficiently, that's the sad reality. Bush expanded it greatly with the Department of Homeland Security. How's it working out? Why do you want to expand it further with national healthcare? The government gets average to below average grades all over the place, why would that be any different? There has to be a better way.
What's the Republican answer? Let the market sort it out?
Sorry, but our market as it it exists today, with minimal regulation has been worse for the middle class and working poor than any foundering public program.
The market is worse than wasteful, it is neglectful, it is abusive. It's profit first and does not serve the true prosperity of people in any meaningful way. People are resources to be exploited as cheaply as possible, not assets to be invested in.
No, give me publicly funded initiatives rooted deeply in the interest of the public good. Just like it was when this country built the greatest middle class the world has ever seen.
My opinion is that the answer lies in better Government oversight of private industry to prevent the abuses you describe.
I don't subscribe to just taking the industry over and Federalizing it, which is a much greater and more difficult task.
I don't care what Rino Hunter says, you're a good conservative, Bruce.
I appreciate that. You guys definitely keep me on my toes. That's a good thing.
Question for all of you. How does this waste measure in regards to the budget. The numbers have seemed significant, but considering allowable waste in the private sector. A few weeks ago i read about losses to shoplifting and employee theft at the Wal-Mart corporation within the United States. Wal-Mart considered three percent loses to theft to be acceptable. At three percent this sounds pretty low. But with Wal-Mart three percent figures out to be, if i remember the article right, to be approximately three billion dollars. So, following the percentage of total revenue, which could translate into budget, 97 percent was not lost. But this still was three billion dollars, give or take. Comments are made about missappropriation and earmarks. However, the earmarks in total are something less than five percent of the total federal budget. This is slightly more than the percentage of lost revenue Wal-Mart deals with for stolen product. So, rather than considering raw numbers lets consider percentages of budget.
To paraphrase Estes Kefauver (I think), "$1 Billion here, $1 Billion there, pretty soon we are talking some serious money." I suppose we could settle for a 5% earmark waste (compared to the total budget), but if we take non-discretionary government payments, i.e. Medicare, SS, Interest on debt, etc off budget, then what percentage are we talking about. The non-discretionary figure runs, I believe, in excess of 60% of the federal budget, so now earmarks exceed 12% of discretionary spending. Is that acceptable?
OK, Bruce, we've got the confession.Unfortunately, I can't recall you ever resorting to the "if you love taxes so much, why don't you send extra" line, otherwise, I could ask you why you don't give your paycheck back to me.
Dammit! ;0)
I feel like I've come out of the closet. It's very liberating.
;-)
Oscar, a couple of questions. The first iswhat does control over vehicles, in regards to DOE actually mean? Are the vehicles used directly by DOE, or do they include school buses used by various local schools? Also what does the idea that there are more employees at USDA than farmers actually relate to? Does the definition of farmer include migrant workers? Also how does this number relate to the role of the USDA through the entire path that food goes through from farm to consumer? This path, it could be argued, includes such things as the butcher and food processor. So, perhaps the comparison should be expanded to the comparison of USDA numbers to the numbers of people in food production industries. If that is accomplished, then what would the numbers then show?
DOE = Dept of Energy (not Education), don't believe they are involved in student transportation.
USDA. If one US farmer can feed over 100 citizens, surely one USDA employee could handle more than one farmer and still take care of food plant inspections, etc.
Like taxes? Then send more of your earned income voluntarily to the government. Opt in, put your money where your mouth is. Contribute more! They will gladly take it and you will feel much better knowing they are able to spend it with much more care than you are.
Write your extra checks today!
I just might do that; in the meantime all you societal dropouts who won’t pay your fair share can feel free to stop using my roads, banks, postal system, police force and fire dept. You can just stop leeching off of my generosity and go build your own infrastructure with your tax cut.
How far can you stretch your extra $500?
To use a famous liberal arguning ploy - strawman argument extraordinaire. But good for you.
Boy, that never gets old. I still can't get over the fact that you openly mock logic and the basic rules of debate as a parlance exclusive to liberals. Even Stephen Colbert couldn't figure out a way to parody that. That's beyond satire.
Whenever someone says "cut taxes", boom - that means we want no police, fire or roads to drive on. Well, thanks for clearing that up. I better hire a security guard, fireproof my home and get a donkey for transportation.
The rest of us would be happy to jettison your parasitic arses. - roundhouse / Wednesday July 25, 2007 01:47:52 PM EST
I would be willing to bet most of the top 10% of wage earners feel the same way about the bottom 90% of wage earners.
Now there is an honest elitist.
Because we know that the bottom 90% didn't buy or manufacture the products offered by the top 10%, and they didn't roof the homes of the top 10%, and they didn't serve the dinners or wash the dishes of the top 10%. And they don't fight the wars, or mow the grass or fix the air conditioning or build the cars or educate the kids of the top 10percenters.
The top 10% has built the Homeland themselves, and are now expected to not only share it with the bottom 90% of squatters and leeches, but to pay more in taxes to keep them comfortable and safe.
The bottom 90% should be grateful they're allowed to live at all.
Exactly, Neon. And anyone who's not whining about pitching in must love taxes. ;0)
And what about the slaves? They paid 0% - ZERO, Zip, Zilch - in taxes, and yet their heirs are enjoying the fruits of the Homeland, like they're entitled or something? And they have the nerve to ask for reparations on top of that?
The mind reels...
You're kidding, right?
I think the point is that those plantation owners just wanted to create jobs and stimulate the economy, and that Socialist Lincoln decided Big Government would step in and assault capitalism by telling employers whether employees had to consent to being employed or not.
Wasn't the Free Market working just fine?
I always loved this one....from the net. My apologies if the print is too small
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Let's suppose that every evening 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. This bill is divided the same way our tax burden is divided, the first four men pay nothing; the fifth guy pays $1; the sixth guy chips in $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest 10%) would pick up $59. The men all ate dinner in the restaurant every evening and all seemed quite happy with this arrangement until the restaurant owner threw a wrench in the works. "Since you are my best customers," he said, "From now on, I'm going to reduce your bill by $20. Now dinner for all 10 of you will only cost $80."The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.The men call an accounting friend with this conundrum and he suggests that the most equitible plan would be to allocate the savings based on the proportions they were paying before the discount. He worked out the amounts each should pay based on that assumption with the following results: The first five now paid nothing; the sixth pays $2, the seventh $5, the eighth $9, the ninth $12, and the tenth man now would pay $52.Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. He (the tenth man) got seven times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!""Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men vented their outrage on the the tenth. He was so put off that he was no longer willing to have dinner with them anymore. So the next evening he didn't show up. The remaining nine sat down and ate without him. When the bill came, however, they discovered something very important. They were now $52 short!
I've always loved that one too, Dave. A sparkling example of Elitist propaganda.
For a more realistic metaphor, see the response posted here.(I'm not sure who originally wrote this, so I'll say "from the net" too)
"Let's revisit this dinner....10 men got together for dinner. They had all been invited by the owner to share a meal in a restaurant called Earth (just a coincidence, folks).Four of the men were served one pea each by the very gracious waiters. The fifth man got a quarter glass of beer in addition to wash down the pea. The sixth got a side order of mashed potatoes on top of the pea and the quarter glass of beer.The seventh man got his beer refilled. The eighth man was served a hamburger and fries, a pint of beer and a pea, but no mashed. The ninth man got a steak with vegetables instead of the burger and fries. The tenth man received a scotch before the meal, an antipasto salad, some oysters, a steak with vegetables, a choice of wine, champagne, beer (or all three).Then they were offered some dessert. The tenth man said, "I think I should have almost all the dessert because, after all I have already had a scotch before we ate, a delicious antipasto salad, some very fine oysters, a tender steak with vegetables, and a bottle of Chateau Mouton Rothschild Premier Grand Cru Classe - Pauillac from 1990 (which was an excellent vintage), while many of you only ate a single pea."But then the tenth man reconsidered and said, "Why don't you all share some of this dessert with me, even though you have such poor appetites. I'll offer you all half of this dessert, so you may share it amongst yourselves."After finishing her half of the strawberry shortcake, the tenth man smiled contentedly, wondering how the others would manage without her, took off her man's bald-spot wig, and then Ayn Rand left the dining room."
That was very funny, too HBL. The only thing left out was the Romeo y Julietta Reserve in the limo on the ride home. And in Ayn's case, I couldn't possibly eat dessert after playing 18 holes at Spyglass either. That would be too elitist.
I'm surprised that the article and all the comments so far have not mentioned what I saw as the most glaring issue in McCain's statement. Sure he had all that BS about the tax rate and we can argue that forever, but how is he going to use line-item vetoes as a tool if they have been deemed unconstitutional? This should have been highlighted by the original article and follwed up by the obvious question, what other constitutional restrictions on his power is McCain going to ignore as President?
Bravo! Good catch.