60 Minutes called Obama's -- but not McCain's -- economic agenda "expensive," even though McCain's is reportedly more so
SUMMARY: During interviews with Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama, CBS 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft characterized Obama's economic agenda as "ambitious and expensive," citing the costs of Obama's infrastructure, alternative energy, and health care plans, but there was no similar characterization of McCain's tax agenda by correspondent Scott Pelley, who interviewed McCain, even though, according to the Tax Policy Center, McCain's tax plan would likely add $1.5 trillion more to the federal deficit over 10 years than Obama's tax plan.
During the September 21 CBS 60 Minutes broadcast, which consisted of interviews with Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama, correspondent Steve Kroft characterized Obama's economic agenda as "ambitious and expensive." However, there was no similar characterization of McCain's tax agenda by correspondent Scott Pelley, who interviewed McCain, even though, according to the Tax Policy Center, McCain's tax plan would likely add more to the federal deficit than Obama's tax plan. The Tax Policy Center's latest report stated that "Senator Obama's plan as described by his economic advisers would increase the ten-year cumulative deficit by about $3.6 trillion to $5.9 trillion; Senator McCain's plan would boost it by $5.1 trillion to nearly $7.4 trillion."
During the Obama interview, Kroft said that Obama has an "ambitious and expensive economic agenda -- $60 billion to create jobs improving the infrastructure, $150 billion to develop alternative energy sources, and a similar amount for health care," and said to Obama, "The McCain campaign, right now, is characterizing you as just another big-spending liberal and that, as a result of this, he [Obama] wants to raise taxes." Obama replied in part, "I would say if you are making $150,000 a year or less, you are definitely getting a tax cut under my plan. Between 150 and 250,000, you're probably gonna stay roughly the same. It is true, if you make more than $250,000 a year, you'll probably pay a slightly higher rate, but you'll probably still pay lower taxes than you did back in the '90s, and you definitely will be paying lower taxes than you did under Ronald Reagan." Kroft followed up by asking: "Is it a good idea to be raising taxes at a time when the country seems to be broke?"
After reporting that "[t]he most expensive part of the Obama program is the health insurance plan, which would make coverage for children mandatory and promises affordable, government-subsidized insurance to all Americans, with premiums based on a percentage of their income," Kroft asked Obama how much his health care plan would cost, adding, "A hundred and fifty billion dollars it's gonna cost, right?"
By contrast, during the interview with McCain, Pelley did not characterize McCain's tax agenda as "expensive" and did not bring up the specific costs of his tax cuts.
Of the federal deficit, Kroft asked Obama, "Right now, it's -- what? Four hundred billion? ... Is it gonna go up under an Obama administration?" Pelley did not note that the deficit under McCain's economic agenda would likely be greater.
From the Tax Policy Center's September 2008 report, titled, "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans":
Both campaigns have complained that our analysis is incomplete because we fail to consider the effects of their spending cuts on the budget. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the federal budget will run a cumulative deficit of $2.3 trillion over the 2009-2018 period under current law (see Summary Table 1).3 If federal spending evolves as CBO predicts, the proposed tax cuts would add to those deficits and substantially increase the national debt. Senator Obama's plan as described by his economic advisers would increase the ten-year cumulative deficit by about $3.6 trillion to $5.9 trillion; Senator McCain's plan would boost it by $5.1 trillion to nearly $7.4 trillion. Adding to their plans proposals made in stump speeches but not confirmed by campaign advisors would lower the cumulative deficit over the decade slightly to $5.4 trillion for Obama and raise it to almost $11 trillion for McCain. Beyond this, the health proposals and campaign promises not in the official descriptions could increase the costs still further.
Both candidates claim, however, that they will reduce spending below CBO's baseline, which would shrink the deficits. Indeed, Senator McCain recently promised to balance the budget by 2013 through sharp cuts in discretionary spending (including defense) and entitlements, although that was before the new, bleaker, CBO projections. Both candidates promise to eliminate earmarks and make the government more efficient and both expect to save billions by making the health care market work more effectively. Each candidate claims that he will rein in spending more than his opponent. Senator McCain points to the proposals made by Senator Obama for expansions in health care, education, and infrastructure. Senator Obama says that he will cut military spending by extricating us from Iraq sooner than Senator McCain would. Bringing the federal budget into balance would, however, require unprecedented spending cuts under either candidate's tax plan. For example, given the tax cuts described in his stump speeches, Senator McCain would have to cut federal spending in 2013 by more than 25 percent to balance the budget.
Finally, Senator McCain's advisors have pointed out that the budget situation could improve if his proposals lead to more economic growth. However, if the tax cuts substantially raise the national debt, the increase in borrowing by the federal government could crowd out private investment and consumers' purchases of homes and durable goods, which could slow the economy.
From the September 21 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes:
PELLEY: What are the differences between you and Senator Obama on taxes? In your plan, who gets a tax cut?
McCAIN: Well, in my plan, everybody does.
PELLEY: Senator Obama's plan would cut taxes more than McCain for the middle class, but Obama would raise taxes for those making more than $250,000 a year. And last week, McCain turned up the temperature on the rhetoric.
McCAIN [video clip]: His tax increase, along with the enormous new federal programs he proposes, are the surest way to turn a recession into a depression.
PELLEY: You and Senator Obama propose cutting taxes in different ways, but in the last few days, the federal deficit broke all records.
McCAIN: Yes.
PELLEY: It's now $400 billion that the federal government is in the red. Is it smart to cut taxes for anyone in this economic emergency with that kind of a deficit?
McCAIN: Well, number one, Scott, the worst thing you could do is raise taxes on anybody, and I don't know which iteration we are talking about of Senator Obama's. He's had four or five different positions on which taxes he would increase, which ones he wouldn't. I think the major point here is that spending got out of control. How many Americans know that the size of government increased by 40 percent in the last seven years? We, Republicans, for six of the eight years, presided over the greatest increase in government since the Great Society. Republicans came to power to change Washington, and Washington changed us.
PELLEY: But how do you cut the budget --
McCAIN: Oh, easy. Look --
PELLEY: -- that much?
McCAIN: Look, if you were able to increase the budget and the size of government by 40 percent, don't you think you could cut some of it?
PELLEY: What are you going to cut?
McCAIN: I think we'll -- frankly, you can eliminate so many agencies of government that are outmoded. Obviously, I would scrub defense spending. Obviously, we would look at every institution of government. I would stop these protectionist tariffs. I would stop subsidizing sugar.
PELLEY: Did I just hear you say you're gonna cut the defense budget?
McCAIN: I think there's areas in defense where we can save a lot of money in cost overruns.
[...]
KROFT: Friday, in Coral Gables, Obama was surrounded by a financial brain trust that includes three former treasury secretaries and a former Federal Reserve chairman who are advising him on the Wall Street crisis and on his ambitious and expensive economic agenda -- $60 billion to create jobs improving the infrastructure, $150 billion to develop alternative energy sources, and a similar amount for health care.
The McCain campaign, right now, is characterizing you as just another big-spending liberal --
OBAMA: Right.
KROFT: -- and that, as a result of this, he wants to raise taxes.
OBAMA: Right. They're wrong. And I think they're being deliberately misleading. Under my tax plan, 95 percent of American workers would get a tax cut -- 95 percent. If you are making less than $250,000, you would not see a single dime of tax increase -- not on anything. And --
KROFT: And at what level would the tax break start to kick in?
OBAMA: Well --
KROFT: Salary-wise?
OBAMA: I would say if you are making $150,000 a year or less, you are definitely getting a tax cut under my plan. Between 150 and 250,000, you're probably gonna stay roughly the same. It is true, if you make more than $250,000 a year, you'll probably pay a slightly higher rate, but you'll probably still pay lower taxes than you did back in the '90s, and you definitely will be paying lower taxes than you did under Ronald Reagan.
KROFT: Is it a good idea to be raising taxes at a time when the country seems to be broke?
OBAMA: Well, keep in mind, that we are cutting taxes for 95 percent of the people who are more likely to spend the money to go and put that money to work in a small business, who are more likely to give a boost to the economy -- a stimulus to the economy -- at a time when it's needed.
KROFT: The most expensive part of the Obama program is the health insurance plan, which would make coverage for children mandatory and promises affordable, government-subsidized insurance to all Americans, with premiums based on a percentage of their income.
How much is it gonna cost? A hundred and fifty billion dollars it's gonna cost, right? It is?
OBAMA: It is. It is, but we pay for every dime that we propose to spend. I believe in "pay as you go." That if you want to propose a new program, you better cut some old ones. If you want to expand a program, then you better figure out where the money's coming from.
KROFT: So, this is paid for with the increased taxes on people who make more than $250,000 a year.
OBAMA: It's rolling back the Bush tax cuts. It's closing corporate tax loopholes. But, look, I don't make a claim that we are going to be able to eliminate our deficit within my first term as president.
KROFT: Right now, it's -- what? Four hundred --
OBAMA: It's a lot.
KROFT: -- billion? Right.
OBAMA: Yeah.
KROFT: Is it gonna go up under an Obama administration?
OBAMA: No, it's gonna go down, but it's not gonna go away, because we've dug ourselves a deep hole.















Well Bush is taking care of everything. He is making sure that we won't have a dime left to spend on ourselves and our country. The media love this angle though....otherwise how do you write and article against something everyone wants....oh yeah...ITS TOO EXPENSIVE. Obama hasn't promised everyone in American a new porsche or anything outlandish, but our corporate owned media pretends that healthcare is some impossible dream. Sure they did it in Europe, but those guys are socialists in the traditional sense. The Busheviks are a whole other animal.
BOOO! BOOO! Hey ref how much do have on McCain? You blank! You hear me ref, you blanking blanker!
"Adding to (up?) their plans proposals made in stump speeches but not confirmed by campaign advisors would lower the cumulative deficit over the decade slightly to $5.4 trillion for Obama and raise it to almost $11 trillion for McCain."---Tax policy Institute from article
>>>This shouild be game-set-match for Obama. Obama would win the Republican vote if they really were the party of fiscal responsibility.
He would probably win the votes of the Conservatives, if there were facts to back his words. He will not win the votes of the diehard Republicans, unless he ran as a Republican. By Conservative, I am referring to those few true conservatives that demand fiscal responsibility and actually "walk the talk". I just don't see any of them on the National Scene. BHO has not got my vote yet, but neither has JSM, because I haven't fully had an opportunity to review their plans in detail (and weighing that detail against the reality that the first thing either of them will do on Jan 21 is to start running for re-election). I see not how one can balance the budget with a revenue neutral tax plan, especially when Steeeeeevie tells me there is nothing in the budget that can be cut enough to put it in balance.
Curious, did you see any true conservatives when you voted straight republican in 2004?
I'd encourage you to vote third party, but there aren't any true conservatives there either.
Steeevie, despite your seeming to know how I voted, I did not vote a straight ticket in 2004. I think the only time I may have voted a straight ticket was straight D in 1964 and straight R in 1984. I will admit, much to my chagrin, that I voted Bush in 2004, but then again I voted against his father in 1992. I'm looking third party this year, but I will probably wind up voting for the candidate that most closely aligns with my beliefs (and honestly, BHO is doing some things that appear to be closer than JSM, but the next six weeks will tell.)
This is a faulty criteria to base your vote on. Not to pick on you OTG as it's so common--probably as many vote this way as who vote party at the Presidential level.
It's faulty cause the candidates owe their parties for nominating them and then helping them get elected (for the winning candidate). Also they need the help of their party to govern and then get reelected. Plus they fib to get your vote.
Personally I'm voting for Obama even if he comes out against mom and apple pie. I'm not a big Obama guy but I am and always have been a Democrat. There was never a question in my mind once he had the nomination even though I was concerned about the poisoned chalice as far as a crash after the election and its effect on the party as a whole. I now even think he may win due to the financial markets seizing up before the vote.
Another thing, to you guys that pay attention unlike so many and still are Republicans, my only thought is "good luck and God love you."
I'm still unsure as to where my vote will go this year, but win or lose, I will support the one elected and hope and pray that he can work in a bi-partisan way to get things done. (I say bi-partisan, because I don't think either party will gain the necessary majority in the Senate, 60 votes, to keep from partisanship rearing its ugly head once again). I'm more than a little fed up with the fingerpointing that goes on. There seems to be enough blame, especially on this latest financial boondoogle to go around all the members of Congress and yet both sides are yelling "It ain't our fault!"
I can't believe that CBS would be so biased for McCain. CBS stands for the Conservatives Broadcast Service. God what happened to the liberal media?
The entire substance of the 60 Minutes story, and the talk about "ambitious and expensive" economic agendas, and about the costs of our next President's various (and particular to him) National Policy plans, and about "tax agendas"... this is all a joke, right?
I mean, in the shadow of crippling the Federal Budget for years, and (what will most likely be) double digit inflation, and the forcing of higher taxes across the entire income spectrum, and the slashing of Federal spending (discretionary spending so slashed as to be nearly eliminated)...
I mean, all of this as a result of siphoning off a trillion dollars from the U.S. Treasury, to give to WALL STREET, to cover the many and wreckless losses of the many investment funds and financial service companies there...
And someone yesterday at CBS's 60 Minutes, still gave the green-light to a story about the next President's "expensive and ambitious" spending, in the dark shadow of a trillion dollar WALL STREET withdrawal from our U.S. Treasury...
It's a joke, right?
The people at 60 Minutes aren't that obtuse, are they?
(I think I used the word obtuse correctly... if not, then what I meant was dense thick dumb and completely unaware)
It's a joke, right?
[And yes, a slashed budget and double digit inflation and higher taxes are all what results, when you suddenly print a trillion dollars of U.S. currency, and dump it on the market... on WALL STREET: that truth is what's truly behind today's instability in the global markets, and not that other bull, about opposition to the crime of the century.]
Hopefully they'll be able to resell a significant portion of the 700 billion in mortgages they plan to purchase.
Question: If we (you said "hopefully they'll be able to resell": I think you meant to say "hopefully we'll be able to resell")... if we were able to resell these "troubled assets", then why can't the investment funds that presently hold them, sell them now, themselves?
If these "troubled assets" have any saleable recoverable value, why wouldn't they be sold now by the investment funds and financial services companies that presently hold them?
Isn't it kind of dreamy and delusional, to think these "troubled assets" will suddenly have a value in our hands, that they don't have presently, in the hands of those who purchased those "troubled assets" and made those bad investements?
(The dreamy delusion I just cited, might otherwise be called "The Sucker's Creed": "What Is Worthless To The Seller, Will Be valuable To Me, Once I Buy It")
If these "troubled assets" have any value at all, then why are we (WE) bailing out the holders of those assets?
People need to use their heads here... too people are going off half-cocked on this, it seems to me... this requires an extraordinary amount of consideration, and a detailed examination of the "troubled assets" in question... I'm afraid that Congressional Democrats may not have the brains or the patience to represent the American People wisely in this scheme... and that's going to be disasterous, because what I said above, about double digit inflation and higher taxes across the board, is absolutley true, and is absolutley what has the global markets right now poised for a massive sell-off: it is not because the trillion dollar bail-out may not happen, but because it may, that has so many people anticipating economic disaster in America.
Can someone explain to me WHY we are evn talkign about buying ANY of these "toubled assets" at this time? Here's whay I think:
1st) The gov't should halt ALL foreclosures. If the trouble is due to an adjustable rate, then go to a bankrupcy judge (or some other impartial arbitrator) to reset or renogotiate the rate, with the intent of keeping the borrower in their home, paying a fair mortgage and force Wall Street to write it off. If it's a typical foreclosure (as there have always been) then give both sides an opportunity to renegotiate the terms. If that can't be done...
2nd) Let these firms try to sell them off. If they cna make any rpfit at all, I'd rather that stay in the private sector that go to the gov't. And if they have to write down a loss - I'd rathe THAT stay in the private sector as well.
If setp 1 is done agressively and rigorously, step 2 will be very small.
I just don't get it. If we can GIVE $700 Billion to Wall Street for throwing people out of their homes, and increasing the moral hazard that has plauged outr economy for years now... Why can't we spend $0, keep people IN their homes, hold the companies accountable that made bad business decisions and encorage the firms to adopt mroe fair and sesnible business practices, not by increasing regulation, but simply by making them taste the hard lash of true capitalism.
This bailout is Socialist in the worts way. It socializes private losses, does notihing to help the people paying for it, all the while keeping future PROFITS privatized. How on earth can we expect people ot act responsibly when that's the case?!
If ANY company gets so big that we can't afford to let it fial it should either be broken up or nationalized. Period. And these firms needs regulations, and their parctices need review and regulationas well. This is proof of that. Even McCain (who can't run away from his own record, and that of his top economic advisor fast enough) knows it.
We need to go back to an economy that adds value, and not just one that shuffles money around in a big ponzi scheme.