Today is the day when most Americans officially pay our income taxes, or to be more accurate this is the day the government takes a certain percentage of our hard-earned income. Today, we Americans make a poor investment, with little chance of getting a good return on our dollars. Much of the money we send to Washington will likely be wasted on earmark spending, discretionary spending and failed social programs. And this spending will be done by politicians who openly complain about corporate corruption and all the waste, abuse and fraud in the corporate world that must be reined in by Washington. The difference between the two is that we voluntarily invest in corporations, and the corporate world pales in comparison to Washington when it comes to waste, abuse and fraud.
As we've all heard, the Democrats have a major problem with our current tax system. They feel the rich pay too little, and the poor pay too much. Their solution: "roll back" the Bush tax cuts, which would amount to a MASSIVE tax increase for all Americans. The truth is that the Bush tax cuts were a percentage, approximately the same for all taxpayers. Of course, the rich will pay dollar-for-dollar less money than they did before but that's obviously because they initially paid a much larger amount. The dems have latched on to this as a way to say that the Bush tax cuts have "unfairly favored the rich". Here are the facts, as of 2007:
-The top 20% of income earners pay 86% of America's income tax revenue
-The top 40% pay 99.4% of the tax revenue
-The bottom 60% pay 0.6% of the tax revenue
Can somebody explain how this unfairly favors the rich? What exactly do Obama and Hillary object to? Of course, they object to the notion of Americans paying less in taxes...period. The less we pay, the less control the government has on our lives, which is a cornerstone principle for the democrats. Their contention that the current tax system unfairly favors the rich is an outright lie! So Hillary and Obama have the same ideas, more government programs and higher taxes. Same song, different verse.
And today, John McCain announces his plan. Before I get into it, I'll repeat my previous position that the government already has plenty of our money, taking more is simply out of the question. If they need money for something, they need to find it by cutting spending somewhere else. That's the main thing I like about McCain's plan. Here are the details:
-doubling the federal income tax exemptions for dependents, from $3,500 to $7,000
-declare a summer gas-tax holiday, suspending the 18.4-cent gas tax and 24.4-cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day this year (I like this because the dems love to complain about gas prices, but McCain seems poised to put it to a Senate vote, no doubt putting his opponent to the test)
-offering people at risk of foreclosure a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage loan backed by the federal government (not sure I like this, but I'll tolerate it if it means passing the rest of his plan)
-phase out the alternative minimum tax (an absolute must, the AMT is ridiculously unfair)
-tweak the prescription drug benefit to exclude taxpayers who can afford medicine without government assistance
-overhaul the tax code, close "costly, unfair" corporate loopholes and veto every bill containing earmarks (this is a promise that I truly believe)
-use the money saved via his proposals to ease the burden on employers by lowering the business income tax from 35 percent to 25 percent
-one-year pause in discretionary spending while the government conducts a "prompt and thorough" review of each department's and agency's budget. Military spending and veterans benefits would be exempt (it's about time someone actually looked hard at how our tax dollars are spent)
This is a sound plan. It is fair. It does NOT raise taxes and it would be the first step in cutting back on the wasteful spending, something that is long overdue. The idea is that the government can afford more tax cuts by becoming more efficient in how it spends money...what a refreshing concept! It's better than anything either dem candidate has to offer and, best of all, it's realistic. I'm tired of hearing the dems promise tons of government programs while claiming the can pay for it by only raising taxes on the rich. They obviously think we voters are incredibly stupid. McCain takes a different approach and I think it will be well-received.
I also like reducing the corporate tax rate. The dems have long complained about the outsourcing of US jobs to foreign countries (as evidenced by Obama's recent "cling" comments), yet they seem to think that free trade is the reason for this without even mentioning our corporate tax rate. The fact is, free trade is a detriment if we are trading with countries who have lower corporate tax rates. It's inevitable that corporations will pack up and move away to avoid our outrageous taxes, taking the jobs with them. Who wouldn't? We have the world's second-highest corporate tax rate and if that doesn't change we will continue to lose industry and jobs to foreign countries that promise NOT to punish corporations for setting up shop. Decreasing from 35% to 25% (the international average) would be huge in stopping this trend, but you'll never hear the dems admit this. In their eyes, business is evil and must be taxed to the brink of bankruptcy no matter how many people they employ. That way they can tax businesses while complaining about the common man losing their jobs to foreign competitors. This is to their benefit since they can then step in and make promises to this common man that the government will "take care" of him, a cornerstone in socialist thinking.
So bravo for Senator McCain. I support his plan 100%. I'm okay with paying taxes, but I'm not okay with Congress wasting my money. It's about time someone actually changed things. It's about time someone offered a sound plan, free of fancy speeches, that promises less government and more individual liberty. Now, let the attacks from the Left begin.