Did you see the vice presidential debate last night?
I’ll admit that I didn’t watch the whole thing. For one, the Phillies were busy taking Game 2 of their series against the Brewers (go Phillies!). But also because I’m not a big fan of political debates. Rarely do you discover anything significant because these debates are like court: it’s not whether you speak the truth but how well you speak it. And that, I find bothersome.
In the early stages of the debate, that’s exactly what happened. In particular, the exchange about voting history on taxes was all about presentation and spin. For example, Palin began by claming that McCain has never supported a tax hike in his tenure. This is, strictly construed, true. However, McCain has opposed several tax cuts, including the 2001 Bush cuts (which he now supports extending) but opposing tax cuts is not the same as supporting a tax hike, right?
Not really. Because McCain’s campaign doesn’t use the same definition when it applies to Obama. The campaign has continued to imply that Obama voted time and again for tax hikes. During the debate, Palin said, “Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people’s side and reduce taxes and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction, 94 times.”
That sounds like a lot more than the “no tax hikes” claim from McCain’s camp, right? Only it’s a different standard. Biden responded to this, saying:
“…[u]sing the standard that the governor uses, John McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes. It’s a bogus standard…”
And he’s right. Whether you agree or not with the substance or policy of the votes, you can’t use one standard for one party and another standard for a different party when you’re making a comparison. It’s ridiculous. It’s like comparing quarterback pass completion rates in a football game and only counting interceptions for the one team; the standards have to be consistent.
Interestingly, in the midst of the debate, which I was following on twitter, I raised this same issue. One of the folks at Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), an organization headed up by Grover Norquist, took issue with my statement (which I stand by) that it was semantics. Comparing “tax hikes” while only including opposing tax cuts as hikes when it suits the campaign is disingenuous. The twitter user (taxplaya) disagreed, saying: “there is only one definition–ours. we’re atr. we own the tax pledge. mccain is clean. mccain has never voted for a tax hike.” So now you know how ATR feels about it – and, apparently as a taxpayer, your own interpretation of tax hikes and cuts is irrelevant.
But back to the debate. In that same exchange on taxes, Palin accused Obama of “supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year.” Biden pointed out that McCain cast the same vote as Obama – it was a procedural vote.
C’mon folks. Procedural votes, votes against extending cuts and votes against cuts are not tax hikes. So let it go. Both of you.
The rest of the debate on taxes was mostly slinging accusations back and forth about what their running mates’ respective tax proposals would accomplish. Both Biden and Palin focused on what tax cuts would mean to the middle class (nothing new there) and how tax policy would affect other arenas, like health care (nothing new there either).
In the end, I felt kind of like I feel after eating rice cakes. The whole thing was kind of bland and empty, leaving me feeling pretty unfulfilled. I was hoping for something more rich and interesting – the flourless chocolate cake of debates. Not so.
It would be great if all of the candidates could stop with the phony stats and accusations and focus on the real issues. Is that really too much to ask?
(If case you’re interested in reading what Biden and Palin had to say, you can read the entire transcript of the debate here.)
I agree that vote against a tax cut and a vote for a tax hike/increase are not the same. However, a vote against a tax cut becomes a tax hike/increase if it’s a current tax cut that is expiring. The end result would then be the same, taxes would increase.
Go Brewers!
(sigh)
Hey Oxnate, watch your language! (giggles)
Kelly,
I was left feeling pretty unfulfilled, also (unlike you, I guess I’m a masochist — I watched the whole miserable thing). I think both sides need to stop with the stats (one of the nice things about statistics is that you can make the say almost anything you want), definitely stop slinging mud, and get back to the issues — namely, what are they going to do that will help make things a little better around here.
Melody
Hard to believe that these debaters keep bringing up stats and such that have already been disproven. The more a person hears it, the more likely they are to believe it?
Pmac, Statistically, I believe that’s true… sorry, couldn’t resist.
Dan,
I’m not arguing that isn’t true, I’m just saying that both campaigns need to be consistent in their definitions when making this point – otherwise it’s meaningless. That’s all.
First off, GO PHILLIES! Sorry, I can’t help myself. Second, I find these debates misleading as well. It’s hard to choose one team over another when I feel like I’m hearing only what they want me to hear. I came across some insightful info this morning…an article called “The 16th Amendment” on this website”
http://www.petermanseye.com/
Check it out. Who knew reading about taxes could be both informational and enjoyable. And, if for nothing else, give yourself a 10 mintue work break. With all of the stress coming from the government bailout, the presidential campaigns, and every other minuscule daily matter, I think we are well-deserved. Cheers.
Biden lied thus I discount everything he said. I also think debates should not happen. Let each candidate go out on their own and campaign. Not all the American people are stupid and followers of the media. Now if a new law is ever needed that would be the one. The media trying to control a nation of people. Sickening.
There is a book out that includes a study of who pays taxes and how they vote.
As readers of this blog know, only about half the adult population pays any income tax. The other half either pays no income tax or gets a negative ‘tax’ via EITC.
Among income tax non-payers only about 25% support McCain.
Among income tax payers only about 25% support Obama.
McCain is not nearly as strong on low taxes as President Bush, but he’s light years better than Obama.
It is not possible for a rational person to look at Obama’s record and his enthusiasm for many very expensive new entitlement programs and conclude that taxes will not increase more under Obama than they would under McCain.
If Obama is elected, it will be by public sector employees and non-income tax payers.
Jim,
Thanks for the comment. A key factor that’s missing in your last comment, though, is that few voters will make a decision solely based on tax policy. While the top issue right now is polling “economy” (very broad), the next three are: health care, national security and Iraq. It may well be that voters who support McCain on taxes are swayed by other issues – I find this to be the case with many of my colleagues.
Kelly, if you ever go to Taiwan, you need to get rice cakes made on the spot by street vendors. Then you will never generalize on the blandness and emptiness of rice cakes again!
But yeah, the pre-packaged ones are indeed bland and empty.
This “Obama will jack your taxes” mantra is exactly what the righties were saying would happen under Clinton — he’ll jack taxes, wreck the economy, regulate and spend us into oblivion, etc. Well, that’s not what happened. Regardless of what was going on under his desk, we experienced a balanced budget (ya, with help from a GOP Congress, back when the GOP still had at least a few small-government types, who are long gone by now), an unprecedented economic boom, and I don’t know about anyone else, but my income tripled while he was in office. That, friends, is the bottom line. It’s all about the economy, and Clinton understood that. McCain (who I voted for in AZ when he was last up for re-election) doesn’t have a clue about the economy — by his own admission — and makes no bones about his intention to keep the Bush war machine going. It’s going to be a disaster — and that’s even if he doesn’t lose his marbles or die in office and leave Miss Deer-In-Headlights at the wheel.
I still might not vote for Obama (in 2000, I wrote in Martin Sheen, figuring that at least he did a good job on TV), but McCain has lost his bearings — endlessly repeating the POW line (a la Giuliani endlessly repeating “9/11”) isn’t going to get it done, now that we’ve got some real problems from the past 8 years….
Urb
Cathleen Stacey,
If we judge by lies, we can discount every one of them.