McCain Kudlow Interview - Keep Taxes Low Help the Economy

Excerpt from An Interview with Senator McCain by Larry Kudlow

McCain: Well, I try to talk about them more often. A lot of the people that come, frankly, are people that are having trouble staying in their homes, keeping their jobs, etcetera. But I think it goes back to all this business of Sen. Obama’s view of “fairness.” When Charlie Gibson said, why would you want to raise capital-gains taxes when you know it will decrease revenue? And he said in “fairness.” And he told Joe the Plumber — Joe the Plumber got the message through better, what we’ve been trying to do this whole campaign. [Obama] wants to “spread the wealth around.” That takes from the investor class. That takes money from one group of Americans and gives it to another.

Now that signal has been very clear. And I think people ought to pay attention to it, because it’s been tried before in other countries, and policies of other left-liberal administrations. It doesn’t work, and it’s bad for America. We want to encourage the investor class, and that means capital-gains and dividend taxes are low.

Kudlow: You’ve just unveiled a new tax cut on capital gains. Can you tell us about that? Because in some sense, that’s probably the most important investor class tax.

McCain: It’s the most important in many respects, Larry, and we want it low and we want it lowered. Every time — there’s one tax that there’s no argument about, that every time it’s been lowered since Jack Kennedy, we have seen an increase in revenues. Now, why anybody would argue, as Sen. Obama does, that we need to raise it, even if it’s — of course, the amount needed to raise it is varied with whatever poll he’s taken — but the point is that we want to lower it and keep it low and encourage investment, especially now in America in these difficult times.

Kudlow: But senator, what is — the current law rate is 15 percent.

McCain: Yeah, yeah.

Kudlow: You’re taking the cap-gains rate down to what?

McCain: First down to 10 percent, I would like to see it, and gradually even make it lower. Look, why should we tax people’s gains twice? Why should we tax them twice, okay? They make an investment, they should be able to get their returns on their investment. And capital gains is obviously — low capital-gains tax is probably the greatest incentive for investment that we have in America today. And so, look, I’ll be glad to listen to smart people like you, Larry, but the worst thing we can do is tell people we’re going to raise it, and that, obviously, would chill investment in America, right?

Promises of Redistribution and Spread the Wealth

David Harsanyi's article If It Redistributes Like a Duck... looks at Obama's plans to change the fundamental structure of the American economy by focusing tax codes on redistribution of wealth.

Obama is the first major presidential candidate in memory to assert that taxation's principal purpose should be redistribution.

The proposition that government should take one group's lawfully earned profits and hand them to another group -- not a collection of destitute or impaired Americans, mind you, but a still-vibrant middle class -- is the foundational premise of Obama's fiscal policy.

It was Joe Biden who said (not long ago, when he still was permitted to speak in public), "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people." The only entity that "takes" money from the middle class -- or any class for that matter -- is the Internal Revenue Service. Other than that, there is nothing to give back.

And who knew we needed such a drastic renovation of an economic philosophy we've adhered to these past 25 years (yes, counting Bill Clinton's comparatively fiscally conservative record)? Despite a recent downturn and with all the serious tribulations we face, Americans have just lived through perhaps the most prosperous and peaceful era human beings ever have enjoyed.

From 1982 until now, every arrow on nearly every economic growth chart -- every health care chart, every chart that matters -- points in one general direction, and that's up.

Obama, who, it seems, is running not only for president but also for national baby sitter/accountant/daddy/icon, ignores this success and claims he can "invest" (will that euphemism ever go away?) and disperse your money more efficiently, smartly and fairly than you can. How could any American accept the absurdity of that position?

---

Promises of Redistribution and Spread the Wealth

Media's Bias At Unprecedented Levels

Diane West of Townhall.com writes in her article Media's O-Colored Glasses Blank Out Leftist Truth about a very disturbing element of this election cycle. The media has abandoned its responsibility to vet candidates, and have instead ignored a myriad of radical associates of Senator Obama's and dubbed them 'off limits' or 'dirty tricks'. The reality is that if an average person had the associations that Senator Obama has they would be classified as a security threat, and likely wouldn't even be able to attend events like the Democratic convention. It has been noted elsewhere that Senator Obama couldn't even be cleared to be his own Secret Service agent because of these associations. However, the media doesn't care, they are campaigning for their favorite candidate and these issues are dubbed off limits by the most biased media coverage in modern US history.

At the beginning of Obama's life, for example, there was "Frank," Obama's boyhood mentor who appears in his 1995 memoir "Dreams from My Father." Accuracy In Media's Cliff Kincaid has identified "Frank" as Frank Marshall Davis, a known Stalinist in a Soviet-sponsored communist network in Hawaii. But Obama obscures Frank's identity in his book, even, as Sean Hannity has reported, going so far as to drop passages about "Frank" from the more recent, recorded version of the book. Why? The media never asked.

Later in Obama's life there was Mike Klonsky, an unreconstructed Marxist and erstwhile leader of an honest-to-goodness Maoist splinter group in the United States. Klonsky, like his buddy, ex-Weatherman William Ayers, spreads Marxism through education "reform." As the National Review Online's Andrew C. McCarthy reported, Obama directed nearly 2 million foundation dollars to fund Klonsky's ideas in the 1990s. More recently, Klonsky wrote a "social justice education" blog on the official Obama campaign Web site -- at least until a blog named Global Labor and Politics pointed this fact out. Klonsky's musings were summarily scrubbed from the campaign Web site in June. Why? The media never asked.

And so it goes. The assorted radicals -- from ACORN to Ayers, from anti-white Jeremiah Wright to Saudi-adviser Khalid al-Mansour to former PLO associate Rashid Khalidi -- who have peopled Obama's ideological passage from rising leftist to post-ideological cipher, have been lost in the blur to a media focused solely on their own prize: Obama in the White House.

Such focus has created a drastically blinkered journalism, particularly in these final weeks. Take the fact that the supposedly "post-racial" Obama once funded Afrocentric, race-focused education programs supported by Jeremiah "G -- - D -- - America" Wright. That was a juicy blend of hypocrisy and extremism (dug up by Stanley Kurtz), but the media just averted their eyes.

Or how about good, ol' William "America Makes Me Want to Puke" Ayers, whose own relationship with Klonsky (the Maoist mentioned above) goes back to the days of the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society)? Obama worked closely with Ayers to fund radical programs (such as Klonsky's) in Chicago, endorsed Ayers' work, and launched his political career in Ayers' home. This is the ideological and literal bomb-thrower Obama brushed off as just "a guy in my neighborhood." But the media saw nothing to it -- not even a piece of Obama's questionable pattern of collaboration with a series of people best described as unregenerate leftists.

---

Media's Bias At Unprecedented Levels

401K's in Jeopardy

Retirement funds, particularly 401K's, are at risk. As previously mentioned in the article Democrats Discuss Taking Over People's 401K's Democrats are looking to eliminate the tax break for 401K's and to subsidize a takeover of these savings plans. Investment New reports in their article House Democrats contemplate abolishing 401(k) tax breaks point out the problems with this plan.

"From where I sit that's just crazy," said John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. in Tarrytown, N.Y. "A lot of people contribute to their 401(k)s because of the match of the employer," he said. Mr. Belluardo's firm does not manage assets directly.

Higher-income employers provide matching funds to employee plans so that they can qualify for tax benefits for their own defined contribution plans, he said.

"If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets," Mr. Belluardo said.

US News and World Report has also written articles on Democrats plans to target 401K's and retirement plans if they obtain control of the presidency and congress...
Why Democrats Will Target the Investor Class in 2009

Would Obama Dems Kill 401K Plans?

---

Hat Tip other bloggers covering this issue...

Smart Girl Politics Kiss Your 410K Good Bye

Ms Placed Democrat Obama's 401K Plan is Nothing More Than a Junk Bond

Say What You Really Mean Under President Obama Kiss Your 401K Goodbye, Your Net Pay Shrinks, And The Constitution Will Be Walked On Like It's His Daily Exercise Routine.

---

401K's in Jeopardy

Democrats Take Aim At Investments and Savings

US News and World Report is reports in their article Why Democrats Will Target the Investor Class in 2009 that a Democrat run government will target a government take over of savings and investments for political expediency. It should be noted that the 'investor class' includes people who put thier savings in IRA's and 401K's. This isn't the super wealthy, this is most often responsible middle class Americans that save for retirement and other needs. This not only threatens people's savings it is more evidence that a government fully controlled by the Democrats will result in a dramatic lurch to the left as thes are plans for more big government
control.

1) Hike Investment Taxes. Obama wants to raise capital gains taxes
even though he has kinda, sorta admitted that it might be bad for the
economy and might actually decrease tax revenue to the government. For
now, he's talking about raising the highest cap gains rate by one third
to 20 percent, though earlier in the campaign, he floated pushing it as
high as 28 percent, a near doubling. (Recall that Democratic
presidential contender John Edwards wanted to raise it as high as 40
percent, a move that was applauded by liberals who want investment
income to be taxed as onerously as labor income.) With the next
administration facing a trillion dollar budget deficit—maybe more—there
will certainly be pressure to raise taxes to higher levels than now
being suggested.

2) Eliminate 401(k)'s, IRAs, and other retirement plans.
Democrats in the House are now talking openly about the longtime
liberal dream of repealing the tax advantages of putting money into a
401(k) plan or other tax-advantaged retirement account. "The savings
rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax
breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to
continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating
what we now say it should," said Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from
Washington at a recent hearing, according to an industry trade paper.

Indeed,
House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the
New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her
idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular
retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers
transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement
accounts" with a 3 percent real return.

Not only would removing
the preferential tax treatment of these vehicles raise investment taxes
by $100 billion a year and affect Americans making less than $100,000,
it would surely prompt many Americans, already shell-shocked by the
market's recent losses, to flee stocks. All this ignores the fact that
there are trillions of dollars in American retirement accounts, and
abandoning the higher-returning stock market at a probable bottom is
classic financial foolishness. If you believe long term in the American
economy, then you have to believe in the stock market. If you don't,
then you have to admit the government won't be able to afford its
promises anyway.

3) Replace private capital with public capital.
But wouldn't a weak stock market hurt the economy by making it tougher
to raise investment capital and lessen the return on risk? Surely, it
would. But Obama is planning hundreds of billions of dollars of
government "investment" in cutting-edge technology, particularly in the
energy and healthcare sectors. One specific example: Obama wants to
create something called a "Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund" and
invest $10 billion a year in emerging energy technologies. Now, the
private VC industry is already pouring billions into alternative
energy, but Obama thinks that's not enough and wants Uncle Sam to get
in on the action at taxpayer expense. Interestingly, a new study
by the University of British Columbia looked at the performance of the
Canadian government's venture capital efforts. It found that government
venture capital isn't nearly as successful as private venture capital.

---

Democrats Take Aim At Investments and Savings

Democrats Discuss Taking Over People's 401K's

If you don't think an Obama, Pelosi, Reid run government would result
in a dramatic swing to the left, read US News and World Reports article
on congress' discussion of takng over people's 401K's. 401K's are not
'rich people' savings plans they are middle America's retirement and
savings plans, and Dems are looking to make them into 'government
created' accounts. Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans?

I
hate to use the "S" word, but the American government would never do
something as, well, socialist as seize private pension funds, right?
This is exactly what cash-strapped Argentina just did in the name of
protecting workers' retirement accounts (Efharisto, Fausta's Blog).
Now, even Uncle Sam isn't that stupid, but some Democrats might try
something almost as loopy: kill 401(k) plans.

House Democrats
recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of
Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to
eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement
plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their
dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for
every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed)
every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent
of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3
percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and
chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income
Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't
going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we
have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to
invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now
say it should."

Hat Tip to Smart Girl Politics original article Kiss Your 401k Goodbye!

---

Democrats Discuss Taking Over People's 401K's

Obama A History of Socialist Policies/Beliefs

From Fox News - Obama, in 2001 Interview, Lamented Failure of Civil Rights Movement to Redistribute Wealth

A 7-year-old radio interview in which Barack Obama discussed the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on redistributing wealth in its civil rights rulings has given fresh ammunition to critics who say the Democratic presidential candidate has a socialist agenda.

The interview -- conducted by Chicago Public Radio in 2001, while Obama was an Illinois state senator and a law professor at the University of Chicago -- delves into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when "dispossessed peoples" appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.

In the interview, Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a "redistributive change" in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.

"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

"And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said.

---

Obama A History of Socialist Policies/Beliefs