By Neale Donald Walsch
Thursday September 18, 2008
Is there a 'spiritual' way do approach economics? I believe the answer is yes. And I believe that the election in a few weeks in the United States will tell us where the spiritual values of America are.
Last week we talked about the two candidates and health care. This week, let's look at the economy and the two presidential candidates.
I was reading The Progress Report, on online newsletter written by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, and Ryan Powers the other day. It offered a remarkably informative look at the economics of John McCain.
"Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has spent much of his general election campaign for president trying to distance himself from President Bush's failed policies -- even though the policies he has outlined and would pursue as president mirror those of the last eight year," the Report said.
"McCain's strategy so far has been to make the public forget he is offering Bush's policies. During the Republican National Convention earlier this month, McCain and his fellow conservatives seemingly refused to acknowledge that the current administration even exists: Bush's name was mentioned once while Vice President Dick Cheney's name was not mentioned at all.," the Report went on.
I was shocked to learn this. I knew that Bush/Cheney were not very popular, but to be shunned by their own party like this....wow.
The Progress Report went on to say that Convention speakers also ignored many key issues that face Americans today, such as health care, environment, and the economy." Yet at times, McCain's surrogates will let the truth slip out," the Report said.
"In June, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) admitted that McCain's economic policies would 'absolutely' be an 'enhancement' of Bush's."
Now that the country is darn near collapsing because of the financial crisis there are not many McCain supporters who want to be reminded that Sen.Lindsey said that.
The Progress Report said that Sen. Lindsey was right. "McCain's economic policies are rooted in the same supply-side economic theories that give huge tax cuts to the rich and the most profitable corporations, which will ultimately expand the already ballooning federal deficit. Indeed, as New York Times columnist and Princeton University economics professor Paul Krugman noted, McCain's economic proposals are "Bush made permanent," the Report went on.
Who will benefit from all this? Well, says The Progress Report, "The wealthy will cash in. If elected president, McCain plans to double down on Bush's corporate and individual tax cuts. His plan calls for reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, a plan that would save corporations $175 billion per year, with $45 billion going to America's 200 largest companies as identified by Fortune Magazine. The five largest U.S. oil companies would save a grand total of $3.8 billion per year.
"The wealthiest Americans would also cash in," the Report wen on. "McCain's tax plan will increase after-tax income of the richest 3.4 percent by more than twice the average for all households -- and offer no benefit to the poorest taxpayers and minimal savings for the middle class."
At the same time, McCain has not offered any specifics on how he would pay for these massive cuts. In fact, McCain's plan would produce the highest federal deficit in 25 years. After inheriting Bush's $407 billion deficit, yearly deficits under McCain would increase sharply, beginning with at least $505 billion in FY2009.
So, my friends, what do you think? Is 'give more to the rich' the highest spiritual value, in your opinion? I know that John McCain means well. He simply uses the same supply-side economic model as George Bush. This is what we used to call "trickle down economics" -- the idea that as the rich get richer, the benefit trickles down to the rest of America, including the middle class and the poverty class.
This is the man who voted 90% of the time in support of whatever George Bush put before Congress during this term. Are we ready to give this philosophy one more term? Gee whiz, what will it take for some people to admit, we had it wrong; it's time for a change....?