Blitzer lets Graham off hook on how McCain would "pay for $300 billion in new tax cuts"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On The Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer asked Sen. Lindsey Graham how Sen. John McCain would "pay for $300 billion in new tax cuts" and said, "But there's no waste -- with all due respect, Senator ... you're going to find $300 billion in waste, are you?" But when Graham replied, "No, no, $35 billion from earmarks, but there are other programs up here that can be reined in, including the Department of Defense," Blitzer did not press Graham to identify which specific "programs" McCain would "rein[] in" to "pay for $300 billion in new tax cuts."
During the June 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer asked Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), "So how is Senator [John] McCain going to, as they say here in Washington, pay for $300 billion in new tax cuts?" Following Graham's response, Blitzer said, "But there's no waste -- with all due respect, Senator ... you're going to find $300 billion in waste, are you?" Graham responded, "No, no, $35 billion from earmarks, but there are other programs up here that can be reined in, including the Department of Defense." But rather than asking Graham which specific "programs" McCain would "rein[] in" to "pay for $300 billion in new tax cuts," Blitzer allowed Graham to attack Sen. Barack Obama.
Moreover, while Graham claimed that "there are programs up here that can be reined in, including the Department of Defense," Blitzer did not point out that while McCain has suggested paying for "additional investment" in the military by "cutting wasteful spending," he has also asserted that we "can afford to spend more on national defense." In a November 2007 Foreign Affairs article, McCain wrote, "Along with more personnel, our military needs additional equipment in order to make up for its recent losses and modernize. We can partially offset some of this additional investment by cutting wasteful spending. But we can also afford to spend more on national defense, which currently consumes less than four cents of every dollar that our economy generates -- far less than what we spent during the Cold War."
Graham also claimed, "[W]e believe the tax cuts, the capital gains cuts and the dividend cuts actually increase revenue to the government and over time will help us. The key to this is controlling spending and cutting taxes." But Blitzer did not point out that numerous economists have challenged the suggestion that cutting dividend tax rates and capital gains tax rates leads to increased long-term revenue. Indeed, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated in June 2006 that the 2006 extension of the 2003 cuts on capital gains taxes would result in decreased revenues of $20 billion over 10 years.
From the June 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: All right, let's talk a little bit about tax cuts because there is a huge difference between these two candidates on the issue of tax cuts. Here's what Senator Obama says about Republicans in general, and Senator McCain, that they simply will go forward with all these new tax cuts, and they don't have a way to pay for it. It's only going to increase the national debt and our children and grandchildren will wind up paying for it. Listen to this.
OBAMA [video clip]: Republicans love to say, he's tax-and-spend, he's tax-and-spend. The truth is that my tax plan is going to give almost all the benefits to people who are making $150,000 or less. In contrast, John McCain's got a plan where -- that will cost $300 billion.
BLITZER: All right. So how is Senator McCain going to, as they say here in Washington, pay for $300 billion in new tax cuts?
GRAHAM: Washington will spend less under a McCain administration, so we can give you some of your money back -- controlling spending. Republicans love to cut --
BLITZER: But there's no waste -- with all due respect, Senator --
GRAHAM: Yeah.
BLITZER: -- you're going to find $300 billion in waste, are you?
GRAHAM: No, no, $35 billion from earmarks, but there are other programs up here that can be reined in, including the Department of Defense. But we believe the tax cuts, the capital gains cuts and the dividend cuts actually increase revenue to the government and over time will help us. The key to this is controlling spending and cutting taxes.
If you just cut taxes, you don't control spending. You haven't solved the problem. If you increase spending and increase taxes, you're gonna drive people offshore to other countries. So, the Obama solution is to increase spending and increase taxes. That will not lead to a vibrant economy.
BLITZER: And as you can see, we're standing by to hear from Senator Obama. He's got a news conference coming up.
GRAHAM: Yes, sir.
BLITZER: We'll go there shortly. Another major source of difference -- another major difference is on energy policy, which is been foremost with $4-plus a gallon of gas, $130, $140 a barrel, whatever it is right now.
I like it. I'm all for it: slash the Federal Budget by 10%, by $300 billion: eliminate $35 billion in crooked "earmarks"
And when Congressional Democrats are wrong, they're wrong: they are doing something awful, with their "earmarks" and their scooping money out of our U.S. Treasury in the billions, to direct those Appropriations to their own personal favorite causes: "earmarks"... when they're wrong, their wrong.
Who knows why Congressional Democrats have to continue dragging the Party down nationally, with crap like "earmarks"... the Democratic Party could actually be a "People's Party" in America, holding an easy super-marjority among the American People, of two-thirds (which they approach now, through no good work of their own, but merely by default, by the evil and corrupt deeds of Republicans)... three-fifths and even a three-fourths Constitutional Authority super-majority Democrats could hold with the American People, were they to just break a few of their selfish and destructive and greedy habits, like "earmarks"
Slash the Budget by 10%, and eliminate $35 billion in "earmarks"... great idea!
I wouldn't give that relief though, to the even greedier greedheads that Sen. Graham wants to give it to... I'd relieve the American People with that savings, and not Republicans.
It's true: the Democratic Party could truly be a "People's Party" in America, and even hold a three-quarters super-majority with the American People, and enjoy a three-fourths super-majority in their Congress, were it not for the selfish and greedy "earmarks" that those greedheads among Congressional Democrats seem to hold so dear.
Are you intetionally being sarcastic, or do honestly think republicans (esp from 2000 to 2006) never benefited from or proposed earmarks?
I'm not talking about previous Congresses, or previous Budgets: they're history, and have no existence.
The 110th Congress is controlled by a Democratic majority, in both Chambers: if there are "earmarks" in the Federal Budget (and there are, many billions of dollars worth), then they're there because the Democratic Congressional leadership allows them to be there.
Right now, the present Democratic Congressional leadership is the single biggest element holding the Democratic Party back, from being a "People's Party" nationally, and from turning "red" States into "blue" ones: True.
Spineless crooks? Oh man... dude, you REALLY do not want to go there...
TOM DELAY SAIPAN SEX TOUR!!!
TOM DELAY SAIPAN SEX TOUR!!!
TOM DELAY SAIPAN SEX TOUR!!!
repeat as needed. ;)
Oh man, .... dude
Thats supposed to make me not want to go there?
wah wah wah. Like Craig and Vitter co-sponsoring a marraige amendment isn't the ultimate hipocracy...
BTW, you may want to read this article about curbing in earmarks. While bipartisan, I like these telling statements:
After taking control of Congress last year, Democrats substantially reduced the number of earmarks and adopted disclosure requirements.
Mr. Obama said the whole system for allocating pet projects must be re-examined. “We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’s seniority, rather than the merit of the project,” he said. “We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or nonprofit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists.”
Kiss another right wing talking point goodbye...
That may be the only sentence you ever write with which I am in total agreement.
I'm not talking about what is past: I'm forward-looking... it's the present problems with Democrats that I'd solve, and not the past problems with Republicans (or anybody else) that I'd waste time trying to punish (at least in regard to Budgets and spending, which is what I'm talking about).
I'm forward-looking, and problem-solving, and sick and tired of idiot Democrats.
And I don't know what you mean by "deflection"
It's a false meme to say that earmarks are bad.
Individual members of Congress are there to represent their districts in Congress, for god's sake. Who better to be aware of the needs of their constituents and push bills through that benefit their constituents?
It's the terrible growth of earmarks that happned in the Republican-controlled years that has to be reversed.
Over the years we have had too many senior legislators over-utilize earmarks. That's undeniable, but to suggest that earmarks themselves are bad is shortsighted and irrational.
A small point. "One" does not pay for tax cuts. As we all know the taxes are our money until forcibly (or the threat of force) taken from us by the government.
One simply reduces spending to match revenue.
(i.e., One=Federal Government )
ps. I'm all for a 10% spending cut across the board for starters. Its time to rethink government and eliminate wasteful bondoogles.
Interview them? How about direct observation. I work in the inner city.
Welfare recipient, living in section 8 housing, standing in front of his building on his iphone, wearing $200 nike basketball shoes. Glad that money is going to good use.
"Welfare recipient, living in section 8 housing, standing in front of his building on his iphone, wearing $200 nike basketball shoes. Glad that money is going to good use."
Hey, Science, i challenge you to call in to any black talk radio station in this country and repeat this willfully ignorant comment. Here's a link to one http://www.wvon.com and to black host Joe Madison http://www.joemadison.com.
I'd love to hear you get verbally barbecued by these black talk radio hosts, and get barbecued even more by the black talk radio callers who clal in after your rant is done.
"If Republicans could figure out how to make as much profit on Welfare as they do on War..."
The Republicans figured out how to make money off corporate welfare just fine and dandy. The recipients of corporate welfare write big donations to their campaign war chests.
pseudo-science here has already admitted he was willing to trade troops' lives for oil. It was on one of the rather long threads yesterday.
Are you seriously stupid or do you just play one on the internet?
You sure as hell aren't doing a stellar job answering anything here.
You're slipping, Science.
Retired, lost their home to a flood, didn't have flood insurance (because no one would insure the house against floods) and now live in an apartment that they rent. If they stopped getting their social security check, they'd have to move in with me.
Oh, so I guess all the Californians should just get the hell out of their state while we're at it, huh? Just make it off limits because of all those earthquakes, landslides, fires, etc. Where should they go... Pacific Northwest - oh wait, there are volcanoes there! No good. What about Tornado Alley - should those folks abandon their homes too? Should we ban people from living near rivers such as the Mississippi... you know, that river that's causing all sorts of havoc for people in IA, IL, and MO?
So where should we put all those people, Science? Alaska? Maine? The Yukon?... whoops, that's in Canada! No good either.
Science/Columbo believes in personal responsiblity for everyone EXCEPT his elected officials.
Whatever.
When insurance companies make contracts so difficult to understand that legal scholars have difficulty interpreting their meaning, that then limits one's ability to make an informed choice. It's a problem that requires some good ol' liberal consumer advocacy.
It wasn't a very high risk when they built their house in the '50s.
And that's just hilarious...so for the good of your pocketbook, the entire city of New Orleans (or whats left of it) should move somewhere else?
Face it, some people do abuse social programs, but that doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate need for those programs.
oh wait, you know what? they're young and on welfare. twenty somethings with no jobs, but they definitely have Iphones and nike's.
My parents, that is...
In contrast to you, I actually do work in the inner city, and have never seen someone who was on welfare have anything comparable to an Iphone or new Nike's.
Ah, yes. Our Social Darwinist Victorian Hardass has returned.
Maybe someone will mercifully set him adrift on an ice floe if his 401k tanks before he retires.
columbus1492:
I'd love for you to explain to me honestly how you've never had to rely on ANY government social programs for assistance at any time in your life, and how the private sector free market was what truly made you the person you are today. Are you completely prepared to cope independently when the worst imaginable disaster happens to you? I doubt it.
My father watched his pension entirely disappear two years before his retirement. He is a raging dittohead and bush apologist who until recently spoke in glowing terms about your so-called "personal responsibility". He now collects social security checks to maintain a fairly comfortable lifestyle. Is he a hypocrite? I think so. Are you a hypocrite too? Absolutely.
"Or like social programs outspend military by about 10:1"
Or like corporate subsides/corporate welfare outspends social programs by 100:1, and maybe ties with the military. But you support corporate welfare for big corporations.
It's clear that Science Fiction 101 favors corporate welfare. Conservatives believe that rich corporations are entitled to govermnet subsidies.
Uh no. The fact is whether we tax them higher, or give them corporate subsidies, the one bottom line remains. The company will always target their certain net profit figure. Therefore, if we give them subsidies, we can pay less for the profit. If we tax them more, the product will cost more. Either way, you're going to pay the same amount, the only diffence is paying it twice. If our tax money is directed elsewhere besides subsidies, and they tax the company, we'll pay an additional cost on the product. So pick your poison.
Lower operating cost, lower price. Higher operating cost, higher price.
However, outside of cost, one thing is certain. Employment. A compnay can pay more/hire more workers if the product cost is lower due to easier sales. If product costs increase, sales will decrease, thus increasing the costs of production, and to cut costs in order to maintain profit margin, employees will be let go.
Simple really.
"Its time to rethink government and eliminate wasteful bondoogles."
Certainly, like eliminating spending on these insane wars against imaginary boogeymen.
You are definitely spot-on, AA. Thanks.
What? Defense Cuts? Seems that I remember a lot of hand-wringing from the Troglodytes whenever Clinton tried to cut any money from Defense. It was a standard talking point in the late 90s that he had "Destroyed the Military". If Clinton "destroyed" the military, I wonder how they'd describe what President Numbnuts has done to it.
We spend more on defense than the rest of the world COMBINED. And that was even before spending billions a week on Bush's failed escapade in the Middle East.
That's why I Franken's comment (I think to Rumsfeld) at a party when he said "How do you like the job Clinton's army's doing?"
"The salaries and benefits paid to each volunteer of the military are far more than anywhere in the rest of the world."
Really? Can you back that up?
Sure, very easy statistic to look up. Here is the report for 2005. Where else do you want to compare it to?
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/pay/bl05enlistedsalary.htm
Science,
How does your link prove what you said? Oh right it doesn't. Nice try though.
Science,
So, you made the whole thing up as usual. Very Nice.
Science,
Must I also point out that you made the statement, you have the burden to "prove" what you said?
"The salaries and benefits paid to each volunteer of the military are far more than anywhere in the rest of the world."
Not after the flag-scamming chickenhawk conservative Republicans make their slash-and-burn cuts in Veterans Benefits just so rich chickenhawk conservatives who avoid serving in the military can get the tax cuts.
Speaking of veterans benefits, Vote Vets.org http://www.votevets.org and Ed Schultz http://www.wegoted.com have both pointed out that Liar McCain has an especially inexcusable neagtive record on voting to cut veterans' benefits. So much for Liar McCain's AND the Republicans' big lie about "supporting the troops".
GRAHAM: ...Republicans love to cut --
Really? So what was going on from 2001-2006 then? Did they fall out of love for those years? Or is it that they only love cutting taxes but not cutting spending? Seems to me that if the "Tax and Spend" insult were even true, it would still make a lot more sense than "Cut and Spend.