I've pummelled Jeromy Brown repeatedly in the comment thread to this post about Barack Obama's delusional tax policy (among other things) and how he either won't deliver on his promises or is lying about how he'll pay for them. Till now, Jeromy's just pulled out his usual arguments: slobber, blather, ad hominem attacks, then declare victory.
But this Washington Post editorial points out the way the Democrats' tax policies don't add up.
THE DEMOCRATIC presidential candidates have some big plans -- with big price tags attached. By our calculations, using figures supplied by the campaigns, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has proposed new spending and tax breaks that would amount to almost $265 billion a year when fully implemented, while the initiatives proposed by Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) total nearly $333 billion. Those initiatives, which would be phased in over time and which the candidates say they have identified ways of funding, don't include billions of dollars more in one-time spending.
In addition, both candidates would extend the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 a year, at an annual cost of another $140 billion in 2012, and renew the research tax credit ($9 billion). And both say they would take steps to prevent the alternative minimum tax from sweeping in additional taxpayers, adding $50 billion or so to the annual price tag. So the deficit -- even before any new spending -- would be that much deeper than it would have been if the tax cuts were permitted to expire.
These numbers, moreover, don't include some initiatives that the candidates talk about but for which they haven't formulated specific policies. For instance, Mr. Obama's campaign Web site says he supports closing the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare prescription drug plan, while Ms. Clinton has promised on the campaign trail to "fix" the hole. That could cost as much as $40 billion annually. Meanwhile, both Democrats put themselves into a new straitjacket at the last debate by promising that they would never raise taxes on the middle class -- which they went on to define generously as those earning less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year.
Altogether, then, they are talking about additional costs to the tune of a half-trillion dollars per year, more (Obama) or less (Clinton). The total federal budget this year is about $2.9 trillion. (Emphasis mine)
It's well-known that Democrats pander to the greed factor. Why else define the middle class as including those making up to $200,000? And they don't feel obligated to explain how they'll pay for all that pandering or who will be forced to pay it (even though we know who will). But even by Democrat standards, these numbers are staggering. That $500,000,000,000 figure doesn't even discuss fixing the problems with Medicare and Social Security.
New Democrats? No, this is the same ol', same ol'. Even Jeromy Brown admits that Obama's lying about not raising taxes. When his supporters admit he lies, I think the candidate is in trouble.