OP-ED | McMahon’s Plan is Desperate Nonsense
by Susan Bigelow | Mar 15, 2012 11:04am
(13) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Opinion
Persistent and perpetual U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon unveiled her plan to revive the economy on Wednesday at a Newington woodworking company, pledging to dramatically slash both middle class tax rates and corporate taxes. McMahon’s vast tax cuts would be paid for with a 1 percent reduction in spending every year, though where that money would actually come from isn’t clear.
Other parts of the plan include such tired old conservative saws as ending “job-killing” regulations and squeezing as much oil as possible out of every rock and tree to achieve short-term energy independence. You can check out the plan and the little diagrams that go with each point on Linda’s website, but if you’ve been in this country at any point over the past thirty years you’ve heard it before: cut taxes, deregulate, drill; lather, rinse, repeat. How to pay for all of this while protecting consumers, workers and the environment is, as always, a mystery.
McMahon’s plan is fiscal disaster masquerading as “common-sense” economic policy. Huge tax cuts with only the vaguest promise of spending cuts to offset them aren’t sensible and practical, they’re a recipe for more debt. Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves, as the deficit-creating Bush tax cuts showed us, and they don’t necessarily spark economic recovery. Tax cuts are like any other government spending program: they must be paid for in some specific way, or else they’re nothing more than a budgetary time bomb. McMahon wants some sort of spending cuts to pay for her tax cuts, but she has already ruled out touching the huge swaths of federal spending that are defense and entitlements. So where will the cuts come from? Highways? Education? Prisons? National Parks? McMahon isn’t saying.
The other interesting thing that happened at this event was that McMahon was asked about contraception and the controversial Blunt Amendment, which if passed would have given employers to opt-out of covering certain health service, such as birth control, that they had moral objections to. McMahon had previously limited her participation in the birth control debate to criticizing the president’s policy requiring Catholic hospitals to cover contraception for their employees, but on Wednesday she said she “probably” would have supported the Blunt Amendment, though she “wouldn’t have raced to do it.” That sound you’re hearing is McMahon’s women’s outreach advisers smacking their hands against their foreheads, and money pouring into Democratic coffers.
What’s going on here? At some point over the past year Linda McMahon has morphed from a likable, theoretically moderate businesswoman into a boilerplate Republican proposing irresponsible tax cuts, advocating environmentally unfriendly energy policies and edging closer to embracing an amendment that would have set back women’s access to contraception and other necessary health care by decades. None of this will help her in a general election, but could help her fend off a strong challenge from former U.S. Rep. Chris Shays during what’s sure to be a tough primary fight. Shays, who has a well-deserved reputation as a real moderate in a party that has next to none of them left, fares better against potential Democratic opponents and has been steadily making the case against another McMahon nomination.
In fact, the Shays campaign was quick to dismiss McMahon’s plan. “Mrs. McMahon outlined a number of positions Christopher Shays has been advocating for the last 6 months, many of which he proposed and voted for when he was in Congress,” said Shays communications director Amanda Bergen in a Wednesday afternoon press release. “There are areas where he has disagreements. ...McMahon’s proposal makes our annual trillion dollar deficits even worse by proposing huge tax cuts with no spending offsets. This is irresponsible and politics as usual.” Shays’s release didn’t mention the Blunt Amendment, but Shays has previously rejected supporting it.
Linda McMahon’s tax cut plan reminds me of Bob Dole’s late-stage campaign pitch to cut taxes by 15 percent across the board in 1996, when it had become clear that he was about to lose to Bill Clinton. Her plan is too hasty, ill-considered and simplistic to be anything but an attempt to grab headlines and conservative votes. That she’s unveiling anything like it this early in the campaign could be a very bad sign for her chances in August.
Susan Bigelow is the former owner of CTLocalPolitics and an author. She lives in Enfield with her wife and cats.
Tags: Linda McMahon, economic plan, Chris Shays, Blunt amendment
(13) Comments
posted by: Noteworthy | March 15, 2012 1:33pm
This column is as predictable and tired as the points it feebly attempts to make. I’m almost at a loss about where to start. Almost.
1. McMahon is not a perpetual candidate. She ran one time and is running again. Big deal. Two times does not a trend make. I guess in describing our toxic tax-a-holic Malloy, Bigelow would refer to him as a perpetual candidate since that’s the only job he’s had. That would be accurate.
2. Chris Shays’ comments are predicatable and its his long failure in Congress to do anything relative to deficit spending that has this country on its perilous path with $15 TRILLION in debt.
3. Aside from the 50% of the country that pays ZERO income tax, the middle class is the next largest group and they are the ones who have reaped the lion’s share of the tax increases from Malloy. They are more apt to spend what they get in tax relief because most of us have children, elderly parents and college to worry about not to mention music lessons, sports, clothes etc etc. Will that tax cut be stimulative? I don’t know but giving it to the government sure isn’t.
4. Corporate taxes, particularly for small business are too high and the regulations are as well. If Ms. Bigelow owned a successful business, she would know this first hand.
5. Should there be spending cuts? Absolutely. But it is interesting to note that Demos like to talk about paying for tax cuts but never want to talk about how to pay for new spending. Duplicitous. Should spending cuts come from our parks and other such expenditures? No and to suggest that’s where the excess money is, or that there is enough of it to actually do something about the deficit is to be either intentionally misleading or ignorant.
The budget axe has to fall on the military, and the entitlements - it’s where 80% of the spending takes place. When this country is running a $100 billion deficit or more EVERY single month, to pretend that all is well and sustainable as is with no pain, no sacrifice is to stick one’s head in the sand.
6. And another note on tax cuts - Ms. Bigelow compares them to the Bush era tax cuts. Excuse me, but those fell significantly to large corporations and the very wealthy.
The bottom line is we do need some common sense in Washington and in Hartford. Linda’s plan is not complete but it’s a step in the right direction.
Frankly, I’m sick of politicians telling us that the answer lies in stuffing higher taxes, more regulations and more government down our throats. We have now reached the tipping point of disaster. The answer lies in tax code reform, limiting loopholes and special treatment; higher taxes on the wealthy, lower taxes on the middle class and more people at the bottom contributing something to living in America. Nothing is free and even those at the bottom of the financial ladder should have some skin in the game. Then maybe they’ll care about what all this stuff costs.
posted by: StunningContradiction | March 15, 2012 2:37pm
Susan Bigelow’s article is desperate nonsense. The collectivists are getting more strident than ever now that the proponents of liberty are making headway.
Note that I’m not necessarily a McMahon supporter. I don’t think she goes far enough fiscally and she’s much too pro-war for my taste. I’m really only interested in libertarian candidates.
posted by: joemanc | March 15, 2012 4:39pm
“McMahon’s plan is fiscal disaster masquerading as “common-sense” economic policy. Huge tax cuts with only the vaguest promise of spending cuts to offset them aren’t sensible and practical, they’re a recipe for more debt. Tax cuts don’t pay for themselves, as the deficit-creating Bush tax cuts showed us, and they don’t necessarily spark economic recovery.” Hey, this sounds like the exact same economic plan of the guy down in D.C. - what’s his name? Oh yeah, Owebama!
posted by: UConnHoop | March 15, 2012 5:14pm
Curious as to why Linda McMahon is a “perpetual and persistent ... candidate” but Chris Murphy, who has run for various public offices 7 times, isn’t? Could it be that Murphy is a liberal and McMahon isn’t?
posted by: ... | March 15, 2012 6:49pm
UConnHoop: I assume it is because Chris Murphy is an elected official who is now running for U.S. Senate (meaning for the sake of political attacks, he’d be a ‘career politician’, not a perpetual candidate. That title assume he hasn’t won yet).
Lind McMahon on the other hand, has kept her name in the public sphere and kept aware by the media since she ran for Senate in 2009. She is a private citizen with no former office, thus (in terms of political attacks) a “perpetual and persistent candidate.” Anyone who is a private citizen without formerly holding public office and attempts to gain public office more than once in a row is generally labeled at that type of candidate.
posted by: Reasonable | March 15, 2012 7:50pm
UconnHoop: Chris Murphy is as liberal as Owebama—which marks him as a loser.
Liberal spenders will lose in the coming election. as voters will want candidates that want to balance our budget. Murpyy wants to keep spending us into oblivion—with our dollar only worth small coins at this point. Chris Shays told me last night—that he is dedicated to balance the budget—once he is elected. I like him to win the primary and election.
posted by: Reasonable | March 15, 2012 8:29pm
StunningContradiction: Linda McMahon wants us to get our of Aghfanistan. How does that make her pro-war? She can’t do much fiscally—until she is elected. However, Susan Bigelow, attacks her, even thhough she has not guilty of fiscal incompetence—as is our Democratic big spender Chris Murphy—who is Barack Owebama’s “rubber-stamp big spender from Connecticut.”
Susan Bigelow should not attack Linda, as a partisan Democratic supporter, “as the damage in Congress is being done by Obama’s, Democratic good old boys club, not Linda McMahon.’ However, this blog only attacks Linda McMahon as a smokescreen—even though she did not participate in, nor responsible for the Congressional fiscal mess —Murphy Democrats have caused.
I guess a Democratic writer does not have a problem—attacking a Republican candidate, who is not responsible for our current demise. However, you are in the driver’s seat, Susan, and you can slant your thoughts accordingly. Happy Easter!
posted by: ALD | March 15, 2012 8:34pm
Steven, So we have a career politician, and a perpetual canidate running for the U.S. Senate. To me both terms seem to be something less than complementary. However one thing I do know for sure, the disfunction in Washington, and the resulting huge problems this country today faces were created by those from both parties that we have sent to Washington, not by perpetual canidates.
posted by: ... | March 16, 2012 12:39pm
I think dysfunction in Washington comes from more than just that ADL.
To put it simply, congress is too small. The number has changed in pretty much a century despite the massive population difference. Representatives can’t effectively see their constituents or work with the other aisle because their schedules are packed with fundraisers, lobbyist meetings, and the list could go on for events they hold. If we try and compare our countries functionality to any other time, you’ll get plenty of people who were saying things were bad then too. But at least in the older days of America, congressmen didn’t have their schedules filled with which corporate sponsored PAC or institution would help fund the bulk of their campaign.
And we do have a large corporation head who has made cross-party donations of large amounts over the years in this race to try and influence policy in Washington.
So I don’t think either candidate comes out clean as a whistle in this campaign.
posted by: joemanc | March 16, 2012 3:00pm
“I think dysfunction in Washington comes from more than just that ADL. To put it simply, congress is too small. The number has changed in pretty much a century despite the massive population difference.”
Too small or the federal government has gotten too big? I would think if we followed the Constitution, the federal government would be smaller and local officials would have more say in how money was spent, and folks in each state would be closer to their reps.
posted by: ALD | March 16, 2012 4:35pm
Steven, No matter what any of us may think of her personally, or her tax cut, or any other ideas, I found Susan Bigelow’s description of Linda McMahon as a “perpetual candidate” as both curious, as well as unnecessary.
I agree with you that the dysfunction in Washington has many root causes. Some you have pointed out. However to me it is the battle lines that have been drawn by both parties, with their party first, country second attitude, that concerns me most. To me this has become to biggest threat to the future of this country. That dysfunction comes from the partisan party politics practiced by those currently in Washington, NOT any “perpetual candidate” who is not in Washington.
I must admit however when I read Susan’s words, “perpetual candidate” I immediately thought of our former Atty General, and now U. S. Senator who for 20 years used the endless law suits out of his office to gain TV time each night, as he waited for his time to run for the Senate. Since it was Linda McMahon who was his opponent maybe Susan just got the two of them mixed up, when thinking “perpetual candidate” 
??
posted by: ... | March 16, 2012 10:16pm
jeomanc: You’d be surprised how bloated Washington is with aides, advisers, pages, paid interns, etc. That is where congress is bloated. You might not believe it, but do some research on the issue. Congress gradually grew, and then about 100 years ago, we stopped the trend.
It’s biased towards my point of view, but you can check out this site: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
It provides evidence that based on how many people Congress was representing on average before the cap, there was a solid number that we as a nation sought for. If we retained those percentages, we would have a larger, smarter congress (rather than having great speakers who have the ability to hire people who should actually be holding their office).
George Washington actually felt that 40,000 was too many per representative. How many is it now? 700,000 people per Rep. Having fewer reps makes it easier for special interests, lobbyists, PACs to buy their influence, or the influence of their staff to influence the Rep.
You might also be interested to know that while the economy recovers jobs, the only sector losing jobs consecutively in the past few years (both federally and state-wide) has been public sector jobs.
I hear you on the Blumenthal comment though. I’ve hear people joke that since he was elected, nobody has been able to replace his title for ‘perpetual press conference holder’, though I didn’t watch him much when he was here.
posted by: ... | March 16, 2012 10:20pm
Sorry to double post, but I also have to comment to joemanc that under the federal government’s foundations, the intention was that not only would the house allow for the people’s direct emotions on elections, but also provide a much wider set of federal officials for them to meet with on a regular basis. Much easier to meet 30k or 40k than 700+k, am I right?
But because our congress is so small and the influences for campaign cash that I have mentioned, our Congress has to raise million in what is literally a perpetual campaign to retain their office.