The Bush Poison Pill...

Krugman offered a quick analysis of Obama and McCain's tax policy proposals and how they have been influenced by the Bush tax cuts. Krugman views the Bush tax cuts as exerting negative influence on the campaign and the future administration's ability to change course.

I realized that the tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration are, in effect, a fiscal poison pill aimed at future administrations.

True, the tax cuts won’t prevent a change in management — the Constitution sees to that. But they will make it hard for the next president to change the country’s direction.

McCain may be the more disappointing case, as he has been falling over himself to endorse making the Bush cuts permanent and has plans to lower the corporate rate even more. This coming from the "maverick" who at one point stood boldly against this political pandering to the hard-rich-right. Alas, he has fallen into the role of standard electioneer and couldn't possibly be expected to stand up for what is best for the country.

Obama, on the other hand, offers a plan that will at least partially roll back the Bush tax cuts. His plan is forecasted to raise federal revenues over the next decade, while McCain's will see further drops during a time when the deficit is growing daily.

Barack Obama’s tax plan is more responsible than Mr. McCain’s: relative to current policy, the Tax Policy Center estimates, the Obama plan would raise revenue by $700 billion over the next decade, compared with a $600 billion loss for Mr. McCain.

The Obama plan is also far more progressive, sharply reducing after-tax incomes for the richest 1 percent of Americans while raising incomes for the bottom 80 percent.

The potential problem with the Obama plan is that this increase of $700 billion probably isn't enough to cover universal health care. Krugman views Obama's plan as being limited by the fact that he only proposes raising taxes on those with incomes over $250K. Additionally, the Obama plan gives some of this additional revenue away by exempting all income below $50K for seniors. This one gets my goat, and Krugman raises the correct question.

Mr. Obama’s plan to eliminate income taxes on seniors with incomes under $50,000: since most seniors already pay no income taxes, this would do nothing for those most in need. And one wonders why we should create the precedent of exempting particular demographic groups from taxes.

I know the cynical answer to this is that old folks vote, but come on. There is no reason that a senior making $49K should be exempt from income tax, when a younger person (or in some cases even a family) would not be. This is also political pandering. I am all for helping those most in need, but as Krugman points out-- the most in need seniors already pay no income tax, so who does this help?

At the end of the day, any truly progressive individual will come around to the clear realization that the Obama plan is much more preferable than the McCain offering. This does not mean, however, that we should just accept the weaknesses in the Obama proposal as necessary. If change is the ticket, then you can't be afraid to change the big issues.