By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
As always in presidential elections, we face a choice next month between two imperfect human beings, John McCain and Barack Obama.
I haven’t been entirely pleased with McCain’s campaign, which has been uninspired to say the least. His message, if you read the polls, simply hasn’t connected. Nor has he succeeded in highlighting the considerable flaws in Obama’s tax plan, which would raise taxes despite the weakened state of the economy.
Yet, to me, McCain is the only reasonable choice. He would hold the line on taxes by retaining the Bush tax cuts, which helped the economy recover rapidly from the last recession. He would lower the corporate tax rate, now the second-highest in the developed world. He would lower the capital gains rate to 7.5 percent for the next two years.
He would hold down federal spending. He has been critical of farm subsidies (which Obama has supported). He would uphold the nation’s free-trade tradition — a matter of utmost importance in a time of global economic stress. He has the experience to be commander-in-chief, a claim Obama cannot even remotely make.
The core of Obama’s eco-nomic plan is his pledge to lower taxes on 95 percent of the nation’s workers, coupled with his promise to raise rates for the highest earners.
But there’s a big problem with his “tax cut.” A third of income-tax filers already pay no income tax. How do you cut taxes for people who don’t have tax bills? Simple: You give them a refundable tax credit, which is much the same as cutting a check. Not too long ago, that sort of thing wasn’t called a tax cut. It was called welfare.
Obama’s mishmash of tax credits would go to a variety of recipients, including workers, savers, students and mortgage holders. (A nonrefundable credit would go to buyers of “clean cars.”) This may be good politics, but it isn’t good policy. Welfare-by-another-name on such a scale would be a profoundly troubling shift.
Moreover, the refundable tax credits would come with a catch. As wages rise, credits would phase out. Government would capture a larger share of each worker’s income — a sharp increase in the effective tax rate on each additional dollar earned. That would greatly discourage work.
The higher taxes Obama advocates would kick in for households making more than $250,000, or individuals making $200,000. This may be the year to bash the rich, but many of those in this group run small businesses. For many, business income is personal income. Raising the government-imposed costs of business is no way to encourage growth and job creation.
For the upper-income group, Obama would also raise the long-term capital-gains rate, and the tax rate on qualified dividends, from 15 percent to 20 percent — a move that’s downright loony. This would discourage capital formation and reduce the nation’s ability to draw in foreign capital — critical to any recovery from the current financial crisis.
Trade has received little attention during the campaign, but during the primaries Obama made promises that, if fulfilled, would abrogate the nation’s leadership role in international trade.
Notably, he promised to renegotiate NAFTA if Canada and Mexico refused further concessions. He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. He is against the pending trade agreement with South Korea.
This, even though exports have been one of the few bright spots in the economy. A recent headline in The Wall Street Journal: “Exports Bolster Local Economies Across the U.S.” If we turn inward, other countries will do the same, and export markets will shrivel.
The United States is one of the world’s great trading nations. Our future depends on open markets. Pledging to reopen NAFTA was an ominous signal for trade policy in any Obama administration.
McCain is hardly an ideal candidate. But he would provide a solid counterweight to what is likely to be an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. Obama has run a brilliant campaign, but his thin record of achievement is a poor credential for the nation’s highest office.
To reach E. Thomas McClanahan, call (816) 234-4480 or send e-mail to mcclanahan@kcstar.com









Delicious
Digg
Several points of agreement
Many good points in Tom's column. I also have concerns about tax "credits" for people who have no income. As you say, we used to call this welfare, and this is for the states to do or not do but not for the federal government. However, on several occasions I've heard Obama talk about his tax cuts being for 95% of working Americans, so I'm not completely sure what he intends.
Regarding taxes on earners making more than $250,000: McLanahan worries that many small businesses will exceed this threshold and that Obama's plan amounts to a tax on business. But I'm not sure he understands business structures/corporations. Most small businesses are not structured to retain earnings. Rather, the business disperses profits to the owner annually. Thus, if a business owner's profit is $200K, he/she reports $200K in income, just as Tom would do if his salary were $200K. As a small business owner, I will be happy to pay a higher tax on income exceeding $200K. All of us would like to keep everything we collect, but I'd kind of like young people making average salaries to be able to raise their kids.
Thanks for a good counter-point endorsement.