Greenspan: McCain tax cuts ill-planned

I think he is not really saying they re ill-planned if they are part of a broad effort to reign in spending. Obama's spending would also be ill-planned and with a Democratic congress, well that will be fun for the deficit. Alan, I loved your book, but don't let them misquote you in ill-planned headlines. http://www.bop-o-rama.com

Overhauling Social Security is one on Sen. McCain's priorities! That includes Medicare! Hope you retired people remember that when you vote. You snooze, you lose!

Mr. Silva,
*
Where do you get "Greenspan: McCain tax cuts ill-planned" from the fact Greenspan doesn't favor tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts? Your conclusion doesn't match up to the facts. I have heard McCain say several times that he was also bent on cutting federal spending. You know, small government, individual achievement and initiative, and all that stuff? I hadn't heard that he had flip-flopped on that one yet.

He must be looking for a job with the Obama administration !! Don't do it, Senator Obama, he'll give you the same bad advice that he gave President Bush, who didn't know any better and listened to him !! Now look at where, that great leader, President Bush, has left our economy and our children's economy, in the reddest red, you can find !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

If McCain/Palin get into office we won't even end up with a Country..much less Social Security or Medicare..All they want is war and power...at any cost of money or life..

Oops!!!
Booowqwwwweeepppppp!
Booooowwwwwwwwwweeeeppp!
Hard right rudder!
Coming about, coming about!
Reverse course!!
Booooowwwwwweeeeeppppp!!!!
Gimmee a new lie!!!
Boooowwwwweeeeppppp!!!

His plan holds water as well as his bladder.

"El Pais" is a French newspaper?

John W. where do you think he' ll cut the budget? Earmarks? Wake up and smell the coffee, it's gonna be a Democratic House and Senate! Perhaps you read that one? So, best scenario for McCain is gridlock, unless he pulls American forces out of the "Money Pit", we call Iraq, then we're talking about saving some US dollars, unless you own KBR and Halliburton stock!

Hey Silva,

Who dop you trust to cut gov't spending - McCain-Palin or Obama bin Biden? Remember Obama's acceptance speech in front of the Greek Columns? It was a laundry list of spending that would be paid for by out-of-date gov't programs. In Obama's 4 years in the Senate (2 years in Senate and 2 years campaigning), has he proposed any legisilation to eliminate an out-of-date gov't program?

The problem is McCain's tax plans are not offset by reductions in government spending, not even close. So borrowed money has to finance them and that's why Alan Greenspan is against them. Of course, Greenspan is too much of a loyal Republican to oppose McCain, but I am not burdened with that affliction. I don't believe in my grandchildren being taxed for what would be my spending binge. McCain is not a true conservative. He's imprudent and immoral scumbag who wants to finance his fantasies on the lives of the unborn. To vote for him would be fiscal and financial abortion.

If you're going to put it in a healdine as a pseudo-quote (I'm referencing the colon), you dillweed, make sure it's somethng he said, not something you wanted him to say. I'm getting pretty tired of the vast majority of reporting being biased for more taxes, bigger government and more entitlements.

Sorry folks Greenspan at an older age is married to a younger woman and a liberal Andrea Mitchell! Wow how indebted he is . His economic views hardly matter he needs help with aging. Andrea can play an upper hand. Sorry Alan but you have married a liberal and we are worse for it because at your age you are not free to be yourself you have allegiances to your young wife.
Everything in life is a gamble but you can't have your cake and eat it too. You are too old to matter with liberals.say its over. I remember and so do others at my age but you are obligated to please a liberal Andrea Good Luck! We emember but you sold yourself short . Now you are not as Obama says the Alan Greenspan we knew.Jerry White, Springfield, IL

El Pais is a Spanish newspaper, Mr. Silva?!?

This is why America needs to get a clue about not voting for John McCain. The Republicans have already mortgaged the future of our children and grandchildren to the gills. Enough is enough. Wake up America!

BIAS MEDIA REPORTING AT ITS BEST...............

Greenspan bears more responsibility for the credit collapse than perhaps any other single individual. He has always been a whore to the rich, and stabbed the American wage earner in the back with his support of raising the FICA tax to shore up Social Security, only to turn around and use it to pay for Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Good riddance to him.

Jim,
You are correct, sir. Obama needs to be screaming that Grandpa McSimpson is out to destroy SS.
I don't know why he isn't.

"MAVERICK" MCCAIN'S SORRY RECORD ON WHISTLEBLOWING ...

While Barack Obama has stood firm on employee free speech rights, making sure that those who dare commit the truth on behalf public integrity, the taxpayer and national security are protected, John McCain refuses to commit to real whistleblower protections.

Even now, conservative free speech groups are furiously lobbying him to take a stand, in part to try to neutralize Obama's leadership on the issue.

I know how important this is, having won the U.S. Office of Special Counsel's "Public Servant Award"--the highest award given in the federal service to whistleblowers and, in my case, the first one given to a national security whistleblower. [www.osc.gov/documents/press/2001/pr01_16.htm]

MORE THAN A "MAVERICK," MCCAIN AND HIS LOBBYIST CREW APPEAR TO BE THE "LOAN ARRANGERS."

What is his people afraid of?

A little ethical dissent in government?

What are Greenspan's comments concerning Obama's social programs. Can we afford them? How can anyone conduct an interview and only ask half the questions?

Is this the same Greenspan that inflated the MONEY supply for how many years???? And now the U.S. Dollar isn't woth a nickle. Great monetary policy Allen.

From Factcheck.org - you can just close your eyes and click your heels and want to believe.....or you can maybe see that McSame is still self-admittedly clueless about the economy.

McCain's pronouncements on cutting spending, and even on the growth in the size of the federal government, are dubious at best:

McCain seems to say that he can save $100 billion by cutting out earmarks. But budget experts say that cutting earmarks would actually save very little. And questioned more closely, McCain's campaign now says that his planned savings have nothing to do with eliminating earmarks.
With earmarks out as a potential source of savings, McCain hasn't said what he'd cut out of the discretionary budget to get to $100 billion. He's even indicated that defense spending might increase. If defense spending is off the table, saving $100 billion would require 18.5 percent across-the-board cuts in every other discretionary program, including things like elementary and secondary education, veterans' health benefits and highway construction. The alternative would be severe cuts in a few programs, as yet unnamed.
McCain says that "just in the last few years" the government has puffed up "by 40 percent, by trillions." Actually, it has taken federal spending a decade to grow 40 percent, and even longer to grow by "trillions." In inflation-adjusted dollars, federal spending is projected to come to $2.45 trillion in fiscal 2009, including $1.4 trillion for Social Security, Medicare, military spending and veterans programs. The last time the budget was "trillions" smaller was 1951.

John W: "I have heard McCain say several times that he was also bent on cutting federal spending."

Yeah, John, that'll happen! When lipstick-wearing pigs fly!!

This headline is SO misleading but it is not surprising. Most liberals cannot imagine a situation where taxes and spending both decrease. Greenspan clearly stated that you need both. Obama is going to raise taxes on everyone and increase spending. (The 95% tax cut is a gimmick people) Obama has said that balancing the budget is not a priority.

McCain will lower taxes.

Obama will raise them, especially on small businesses.

That "infamous" top 1% of income tax filers; in order to avoid high corporate tax rates and the double taxation of dividends, small business owners have increasingly filed as individuals rather than corporations.

When Democrats talk about soaking the rich, it isn't the Rockefellers they're talking about; it's the companies where most Americans work.

Three out of four individual income tax filers in the top 1% are, in fact, small businesses.

There go those jobs; the backbone of America.

John W.

The only specific part of the federal government that McCain has been bent on cutting is the pork... which is all fine and good until you consider all the federal pork doled out last year cam out to about 18-20 billion dollars. The federal deficit? Oh, 9 TRILLION. Yeah, you could eliminate every pork program for the next 5 years and it wouldn't cover the interest of the debt we're going into just from the Iraq War alone. So... where does McCain plan to cut spending, if he's going to cut even more taxes? Hmnnn I don't hear specifics... could it be because there are no specifics? Maybe because he's just saying he's going to cut spending, like Bush did in 2000 and 2004, and he's not actually going to do it, like Bush did. I don't know why conservatives keep on buying this baloney year in and year out, but I guess that's the definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result.

Social Security would be okay if the government would quit robbing it to pay for other projects.

Mr. Silva's conclusion DOES match up, since McCain has not defined cuts, he has only laughed and said he "count cut $100 billion just like that." -> A sweeping generalization not supported by any facts is a fallacy (false statement.) Second part is looking at McCain's record - He has voted for tax cuts AND record spending. Record DEFICIT spending.

So combining a FACTUAL voting record with no details, no specifics on how he would cut spending... the result is an ill-conceived plan and more "false advertising" on the part of McSame.

Sounds incredibly like G. W. Bush.

The chief architect of the subprime mess has little credibility in this matter.

The problem is, special interests never want to hear spending cuts. Even a decrease in the annual increase with a net increase is decried. With this attitude, it is no wonder that we have a mortgage crisis. People aren't fiscally responsible with their own lives, so why would the government? taxes need to lowered for individuals and corporations. Spending needs to be cut by a third. Who has the guts to do both? No one running this time around.
Jim
http://www.the-right-guy.com

Wow a republican plan with a big flaw in a plan?! Maybe if we ignore the deficit, it will go away. It's worked well over these past 8 years..

Yikes, McSame never did say economics was his strong point!

What is?

Obama / Biden -08

JohnW - McCain wants to stay in Iraq. That's costly. Every analysis I've read projects much larger (massive) deficits with McCain's plan than Obama's (which would be large).

An aside: I can't believe any fiscal 'conservative' would support Republican policies. Every time, it's the same thin: massive increases in military spending, some reductions in social spending that don't come close to matching that, and tax cuts aimed primarily at upper income individuals and large corporations ... ie massive deficits.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and current chief McCain economic advisor tells Fortune columnist Matt Miller in a forthcoming book, The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, that the next President is simply going to have to raise taxes.

Joe Klein has an advance copy of the book and the details:

“If you do nothing on the spending side, you’re going to have to raise taxes whether you’re a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian,” he tells Miller…and then he immediately makes it clear that the “spending side” part of the argument is nothing more than a political fig-leaf.

“It’s arithmetic.” Federal revenue today is 18.8 percent of GDP and federal spending is 20 percent. Holtz-Eakin observes that “the pressure are there” to lift spending [on entitlement programs, mostly] and taxes to 23 or 24 percent of GDP by around 2020, and to as much as 27 percent if health costs remain out of control.

Miller does the arithmetic: that’s an annual tax hike of $550 to $700 billion, well beyond the range of any spending cuts that McCain has or might propose. (Those vaunted earmarks cost about $20 billion per year.)

So how come, with this guy on board, the McCain campaign is still pushing tax cuts and more tax cuts even if they are fiscal suicide?

“It’s the brand,” he said, “and you don’t dilute the brand.”

How’s that for cynical? Of course, the book isn’t out until after the elections.

More here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/13/mccains-economist-we-need-tax-rises/

Do you really think we s hould put much credence in Alan Greenspan's statements? If I remember correctly, he knew the subprime mortgage crisis was in the making when he was Federal Reserve Chairman. Therefore, since he is no longer there, now he chooses to lambast everything. So if the above is true, then we should dismiss his comments with a wave of the hand. When he was in a position todo something about the current crisis, he did nothing. Go figure!!!!!

Your headline writer's totally misleading lead as well as your own leading questions throughout the interview rank as one of the worst journalist interviews that I have seen in the last week.

"I'm Republican and I support John McCain....'

You can pretty much stop right there. If you're so stupid that you vote for party over merit, your opinion isn't worth the electrons it takes to display.

McCain's tax plan is George W. Bush's tax plan, ill-conceived. Mr. Greenspan doesn't like it but he will fall on his GOP sword and vote Republican in spite of his view of what's best for the country. More importantly, who's gonna prop up John McCain when he's dead?

Nice false headline--why not mention McCain's plan to cut earmarks and spending?

Yeah, we know. Doesn't fit the narrative you want to paint that the R's are bad on the economy.

Credibility going down down down . . .

John W, I thought the Republican mantra was that tax cuts pay for themselves. Have they finally given up that old chestnut? So what does McCain plan to cut? I don't see a whole lot of specific numbers on his website.

I think he is not really saying they (a)re ill-planned if they are part of a broad effort to reign in spending.

Posted by: acarponzo | September 13, 2008 5:40 PM

That's true. However, neither Greenspan nor the Republicans over the past 8 years have offered any spending cuts to go with the tax cuts.

The Republicans ALWAYS promote tax cuts and decry government spending - but they NEVER cut government spending because they realize that there's nothing really that can be cut without serious consequences - social and political.

So the tax cuts remain and the deficit grows.

El Pais is a Spanish newspaper.

Have this with your morning cup of joe. If the joe doesn't wake you and the story doesn't either, than, you are not of this world, or at least, not of this nation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14sun1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

And why was McCain against the Bush tax cuts? Because they did not ALSO include cutting spending.

The government does not need more money. EVERYWHERE you look is waste, waste, waste, and corruption. Cut the waste and corruption before taking anymore money from people.

Just a sampling among millions is the grant money by IL Sen. Rickey Hendon. Or the $1,000,000 taxpayer money given away to the wrong person by IL Gov. Blagojevich. These examples are ENDLESS. Enough already.

Why does Al-Baby still feel the need to spout his "wisdom"? Every initiative he began has been continued by the current Fed, leading to the current "great" economic condition.

Go away, Al-Baby, Go away.

This is just irresponsible reporting on behalf of the Trib. The use of misleading headlines to steer public opinion. What happened to We Report, You Decide? Oh, wait, that's FOX.

Patrick writes: "Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and current chief McCain economic advisor tells Fortune columnist Matt Miller in a forthcoming book, The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, that the next President is simply going to have to raise taxes"

This is misleading as this is only half the statement.

Imagine famous comedian actor and drinker WC Fields being quoted as saying "I dont drink" when in fact his full statement was "I dont drink while brushing my teeth"

Yes, Douglas Holtz-Eakin says the next President will have to raise taxes, but he also adds that taxes will have to be raised IF government spending continues on its current course. He is calling for spending cuts to prevent that.

"Said Holtz-Eakin: "If you do nothing on the spending side, you're going to have to raise taxes whether you're a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian."

Why does Al-Baby still feel the need to spout his "wisdom"? Every initiative he began has been continued by the current Fed, leading to the current "great" economic condition.

Go away, Al-Baby, Go away.

Do you think he just might be leaning
a little toward is left wing wife?

Stop worrying about the grandchildren paying. We were grandchildren once and we paid.

It's the government that is spending the excess social security money EVERY month; after it pays out social security to the retirees.

McCain is going to CUT spending.

Slanted reporting.

If the media would just present the facts, we can figure out the rest.

* * * * *
Posted by: Tom O | September 14, 2008 12:36 AM
*
I don't quite know if the "Republicans" have given up on the mantra that tax cuts pay for themselves. I do know that tax cuts can be shown to have resulted in increased revenues in the past. Whether they entirely pay for themselves is another matter. Moreover, I agree with Alan Greenspan that tax cuts are foolish without corresponding cuts in spending. Then, if tax cuts pay for themselves, even in part, they become a bonus.
*
To address your remarks and those of others, I believe there is plenty in the budget for a motivated President and Congress to cut. Right now, it is estimated that one in every five federal spending programs simply do not work and cannot function as intended. One Hundred Five (105) such non-performers have already been targeted by for modification or elimination.
*
In addition, there are numerous federal agencies with redundant responsibilities. We all saw, first hand, the way the Department of Homeland Security was created on the carcass of several agencies, rather than simply revising and coordinating the CIA, FBI, NSA, ATF, and so on. That did little more than add yet another layer of bureaucracy to give us color coded warnings. But many other examples abound. As of 2005, the feds had 342 economic development programs, 130 programs for the disabled, 130 programs serving at-risk youth, 90 early childhood development programs, 72 safe-water programs, 50 homeless assistance programs, 45 federal criminal investigative agencies, 40 employment and training programs, 28 rural development programs, 27 teen pregnancy programs (Imagine 27 programs just to tell kids to abstain?); 26 small K–12 school grant programs, 23 agencies for aid to former Soviet republics, 19 programs fighting substance abuse, 17 rural water and waste-water programs in eight different agencies; 17 trade agencies to monitor 400 international trade agreements, 12 food safety agencies, 11 principal statistics agencies; and 4 overlapping land management agencies. It is ridiculous to assume that we need all of this duplicate, overlapping government, or that we can't trim a lot of it from the budget.
*
Aside from budget items, there is also the way the federal bureaucracies do business. They are terribly wasteful. Reining in this wastefulness through enforcement of simplified, uniform waste reduction protocols would save us tens of billions of dollars a year. That would be true for the Department of Health and Human Services alone. Basic payment errors have cost an estimated $12.3 billion annually. It also pays more for drugs than other federal agencies. The DHHS isn't even the worst offender. I don't think I have to tell you about the Department of Defense's infamous procurement nightmares. Protocols for enforcing competitive bidding for all agencies would also help.
*
Another problem with the budget is the fact that there is a presumption that all agencies need a yearly raise. If an agency hasn't spent all of the money allocated to it from the previous year, or simply hasn't done the job assigned to it, it is foolish to increase its budget simply because another year has passed. Instead, agencies should be funded, modified or eliminated on the basis of performance and actual monetary requirements.
*
Yet another problem with the budgeting process is ever higher budget limits. Earmarks are not, and never have been, the main problem in government spending. They are simply greedy allocations within budget limits. If the same funds aren't earmarked, the federal government will still find some way to spend the same money elsewhere. So, what really needs to be done is to make a hard ceiling for spending limits. That would force Congress and the President to balance the budget. It might also be a motivating force to get Congress to squeeze more efficiency out of the rest of the government.
*
(The following comments are not a plug for John McCain. He's not my candidate and I don't plan to vote for him. However, I don't believe it is proper to distort his views on things either - as Mr. Silva did.)
*
Much of what I have mentioned as grounds for reduction of waste and spending is exactly what John McCain is now advocating. See http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/reform.htm Whether he can pull it off in the teeth of a non-compliant Congress is another matter altogether.
*
But this simply brings me back to square one. My objection to Silva's headline was the fact that he implied that Greenspan didn't like McCain's tax cuts, and that he didn't like them because they weren't going to be accompanied by corresponding spending cuts. Greenspan offered no such opinion. That he might dislike McCain's plan was Silva's inference, not Greenspan's. That, in turn, was based on the false assumption that McCain has no plans for spending cuts, and/or that Greenspan knew this to be the case. As shown above, McCain does have a plan to cut spending - and there is, in fact, plenty to be cut. Could $100 billion be cut from the budget? I don't know. But I think a number very close to it could be achievable assuming we don't add another $100 to $120 billion to the annual budget to fund a national health care system, or pass out more "stimulus checks."

drill baby drill

Not some more Bush-McCain Republican claptrap, passing for real commentary !! No wonder Rove went so far among them, none of them knew what they were talking about, and our economy is living proof of that, especially, if you are not a " whiner " or if you " have faith "!! What kind of moronic suggestions are the Republicans trying to pawn off on America, this time !!!?? What, George W. Bush, for two terms, wasn't enough !!? Give us a break, all of you, Bush-McCain Republicans, and go back to your districts and get in touch with America, not the Corporations's checkbook !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

I think Alan Greenspan's encouragement and promotion of mortgage-backed securities as sound financial planning when he was Fed Chairman was ill-advised so this is nothing but good news to McCain in my view.

All Bush's tax cuts were ill timed. A majority of Americans OPPOSED all of Bush's cuts when proposed. Not to mention he still pushed them while going in to a two front war.
GWB ignored a historic opportunity to pay down the national debt in favor of an ideological gesture to the right wing.

Jeff,
That's the thing about these Greenspan types; You never know when they are right or wrong until disaster unfolds.