On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 03:16:42 -0500, "Kathleen Miller"
Post by Kathleen MillerFrom now until November 4th, I will be praying the rosary daily for
candidates McCain-Palin. They are willing to stand up for the sanctity of
LIFE, and therefore as Catholics we must prudently vote for those supporting
the LIFE of the UNBORN.
You cannot be Catholic and Pro-Abortion. When voting for Obama-Biden you are
casting your vote for a party of death. This ticket does not stand up for
the UNBORN, and will enforce laws to reverse the ban on Partial-birth
Abortions, as well as participate in other horrendous acts against the
UNBORN.
Trust me when I say I'll never have an abortion and that decision has
nothing to do with anything you right to lifers say over the internet.
If you support the death penalty, then you are pro-choice regardless
of what you say, wouldn't you say?
The best position on abortion is no position and you can still remain
Catholic. Let the church make up all the mandates it wants, not the
law. It is good that most people are not so narrow minded as look at
Rowe V. Wade as the only issue on the table. There is far
more................
If Elected ...
2 Rivals Plans on Fiscal Issue Add to Deficits
By JACKIE CALMES
Published: October 28, 2008
WASHINGTON While both presidential candidates enter the campaigns
final week promising to be the better fiscal steward, each has
outlined tax and spending proposals that would make annual budget
deficits worse, analysts say, with Senator John McCain likely to
create a deeper hole than Senator Barack Obama would.
Mr. McCain, the Republican nominee, has proposed bigger tax cuts. He
has also promised more in spending cuts, but he has not specified
where most of them would come from. Even now that the financial crisis
has given rise to one bailout package and prompted both candidates to
call for billions more in stimulus spending, Mr. McCain has stuck by
his promise to balance the budget by the end of his term, a pledge
that fiscal analysts call unachievable.
Mr. Obama, his Democratic rival, has vowed to reduce the deficit and
put it on a path to balance. He also promises an expensive effort to
make health care insurance more widely available, a raft of other
spending programs and tax cuts for most families and small businesses.
He would raise taxes on the wealthiest households to help pay for his
health care plans.
Neither presidential candidate has provided enough detail, especially
about spending programs and what they would cut, for budget groups to
put price tags on their agendas.
Conservative and liberal analysts agree that the next president should
not be expected to balance the budget in his first term, because
short-term deficit spending can stimulate the economy and the crisis
is forcing the government to spend more in aid even as it collects
less in taxes.
But for the long run, they say, the presidents fiscal record will
hinge on whether he can achieve the health care cost savings each
promises, which in turn will help control the fast-rising expenses for
Medicare and Medicaid. Neither candidate has a comprehensive proposal
to address unsustainable growth in those programs.
Neither one of them is being fiscally responsible, said David M.
Walker, a former head of the Government Accountability Office who has
long warned about the perils of deficits.
The next president will inherit economic challenges greater than any
other president since Franklin D. Roosevelt 75 years ago. Yet while
the country entered the Depression after a decade of budget surpluses,
todays crisis hits a nation in worse financial shape with growing
wartime deficits, heavy borrowing from foreigners, and crushing
retirement health costs for aging baby boomers looming.
The deficit for the 2008 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, was $455
billion, or 3.2 percent of total economic output. Analysts say it
could reach $1 trillion in 2009, or more than 7 percent of projected
economic output, with the country in recession and fighting a
two-front war. During the 1980s, the deficit peaked at about 6 percent
of economic output; economists consider anything above about 3 percent
to be a worrisome level for the deficit.
So far, both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have insisted they do not have
to have to scale back their pre-crisis platforms.
The fiscal outlook and history suggest otherwise. Among past promises
that crashed against realities: Roosevelts pledge to balance budgets,
Ronald Reagans and George Bushs antitax vows and Bill Clintons
middle-class tax cut. The current President Bush kept his biggest
promises, for tax cuts and a Medicare prescription-drug benefit, but
the national debt has doubled to more than $10 trillion during his
administration.
Leon E. Panetta, who was Mr. Clintons first budget director, said he
had warned Mr. Obama of the realities ahead, should he win. Ive told
him, Bill Clinton found this out. He walked into the Oval Office, and
suddenly he found he had a bigger deficit than he even thought he
had. Mr. Clintons reaction, he said, was, Im not going to be able
to do what I want to do!
Mr. McCains proposed tax cuts would mean about $1.5 trillion in lower
revenue over his term, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Extending the Bush income tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 beyond their
scheduled 2010 expiration would account for more than a third of that
total. He also would change the alternative minimum tax to hit fewer
middle-income taxpayers, reduce corporate income taxes and accelerate
business write-offs for equipment. The 10-year cost of Mr. McCains
tax plan would be as much as $4.2 trillion, the center says.
The Republicans health plan mostly seeks to reduce prices. Mr. McCain
would also provide a tax credit of up to $5,000 a family to buy
insurance, at a cost of about $800 billion through 2013. To partly
offset that, he would make workers employer-provided health benefits
taxable as income. He also proposes savings from unspecified changes
in Medicare and Medicaid.
Mr. McCain has fewer spending initiatives than Mr. Obama. His main one
is to increase the size of the military. He proposes energy
incentives, offset by selling permits for emissions of heat-trapping
gases that are believed to contribute to climate change. He also
offers income supplements for older, low-income workers and more
financing for the No Child Left Behind education law.
To help balance the budget, Mr. McCain claims billions of dollars in
savings from reducing forces in Iraq. Neither he nor Mr. Obama,
however, account for the increasing deployments to Afghanistan. Mr.
McCain also calls for cutting corporate welfare, ending spending
earmarks for special projects and freezing domestic appropriations in
his first year.
By his final budget for 2013, Mr. McCain estimated he would cut $114
billion he does not say how to reach balance. He would still be
about $200 billion short, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. But that estimate does not
include the costs of the $700 billion financial bailout package
already passed by Congress (its proponents say much of the price tag
will be recouped by the government in the long run) or any additional
economic stimulus plans that Congress might approve in coming months.
Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a centrist
budget watchdog group, estimated Mr. McCain could fall about $600
billion short in 2013, roughly the annual cost of Medicare.
Mr. Obama would extend the Bush tax cuts for taxpayers making less
than $250,000 a year, and repeal them immediately for those above that
level. He would cut other taxes, including for low-income workers and
small businesses, and raise taxes on the dividends and capital gains
of the affluent. Like Mr. McCain, he would change the alternative
minimum tax to apply only to the rich, as intended, and close
corporate loopholes, most of them unspecified.
Mr. Obama says the new revenue from higher taxes on the well-off would
pay for his health plan, which would cost an estimated $115 billion
the first year, but increase after that. That still leaves his tax
cuts for everyone else to add to the deficits.
The Tax Policy Center estimated that the overall revenue loss would be
nearly $1 trillion for Mr. Obamas term, and $2.9 trillion measured
over a decade. Annual federal spending, which exceeds 20 percent of
gross domestic product, would grow under both mens plans. Revenue
would continue to be a lower percentage, measured against the size of
the economy 18.3 percent under Mr. Obama, and 17.6 percent under Mr.
McCain, according to the tax center. The difference signals continued,
deepening deficits.
The size of both candidates tax cuts troubles many budget analysts.
Even if the next president succeeds in reining in health care costs,
said Joseph J. Minarik, senior vice president of the
business-supported Committee for Economic Development, those savings
will take years to appear while the tax cuts would be immediate.
Mr. Obamas spending plans, beyond his health care initiative, would
mean increases for education, infrastructure, research and foreign
aid, and more for bolstering the military than Mr. McCain has
proposed.
He has a more ambitious climate-change proposal, mandating that
companies buy emissions permits at government auctions. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that those could bring in up to
$300 billion annually by 2020. Mr. Obama would use the initial revenue
for energy initiatives and tax rebates to offset many Americans fuel
costs.