During our last discussion on Senator McCain, we talked about his stances on civil rights…most of which I liked. Looking again to ontheissues.org, as I feel they have comprehensive summaries of where the remaining candidates stand on important issues, our first topic today is corporations.

Q: The president's economic stimulus plan would send out 116 million checks to American homes, but without permanent tax cuts that you sought. Will you vote for this compromise?

A: Yes, I will and I'm disappointed, because I think it's very important that we make the Bush tax cuts permanent. I voted to make them permanent twice already. If people and businesses and families in America are now planning their 2010 budget, there's a great deal of uncertainty. And if we don't make the tax cuts permanent, then they will experience what amounts to a tax increase. But I also would make sure that not only the tax cuts are made permanent, but we cut corporate income taxes. That would keep businesses here, and it would keep jobs here and create jobs here. We pay the highest corporate income tax of any nation in the world except for Japan. I'm glad to see that we're going to allow people to expense new investments in equipment, so they can write them off in a very short period of time.
Source: 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida Jan 24, 2008

M.R.O. says: We most definitely need for those tax cuts to be permanent. The hard workers here in America deserve to keep MORE of their pay, not less. There are so many wasteful government programs that could be cut out that we could probably run another country just off those savings.

And I am glad to see the lesson of Reagan’s “trickle-down economics” was not lost on Mr. McCain. It should be obvious to anyone who’s not a liberal (or anyone with common sense), that if you save the job-providers money, they will be more likely, and more able, to provide more jobs. Way to go, John!

People worry about corporations unduly influencing elections

Most Americans understand that competitive elections in a free country require money. Since campaigns require spending funds to communicate with voters, they know we can never take money completely out of politics, nor should we. Americans have a right to support the candidates and the parties they endorse, including financially if they so choose.

But what most Americans worry about profoundly is corporations or individuals with huge checks seeking the undue influence on lawmakers that such largesse is intended to purchase. That is why John McCain has fought to enforce long-standing prohibitions on corporate and union contributions to federal political parties, for sensible donation limits, disclosure of how candidates and campaigns are funded, and the diligent enforcement of these common sense rules that promote maximum public participation in the political process and limit opportunities for corruption.
Source: Campaign website, www.johnmccain.com, "Issues" Sep 1, 2007

M.R.O. says: Certainly, worded this way, these types of campaign limits make sense. Certainly we don’t want huge oil companies greasing, or “oiling” if you will, the hands of our top decision-makers of new fuel technologies. I think, without pointing fingers, that has gone on long enough.

I still, however, am not happy about the limits on free speech that McCain-Feingold imposed. But I do think that full-disclosure of donors over a certain amount is a good way to try and rein-in influence peddling.

Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore.
Amendment to repeal the tax subsidy for certain domestic companies which move manufacturing operations and American jobs offshore.
Reference: Tax Subsidy for Domestic Companies Amendment; Bill S AMDT 210 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-63 on Mar 17, 2005

M.R.O. says: I disagree with this vote. I think if a company wants to move its operations to another country for cheaper labor, etc., they should lose some of the tax advantages for operating here and employing American workers.

Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions

Amends Federal bankruptcy law to revamp guidelines governing dismissal or conversion of a Chapter 7 liquidation (complete relief in bankruptcy) to one under either Chapter 11 (Reorganization) or Chapter 13 (Adjustment of Debts of an Individual with Regular Income). Voting YES would:
-Declare a debtor eligible only for Chapter 13, as anyone financially capable of paying back their creditors at a rate that still allows them to earn above their state's median income
-Place domestic support obligations such as child support and alimony amongst the first priority claim category of non-dischargeable debts on a debtor filing for bankruptcy
-Require debtors to pay for and attend credit counseling prior to filing for bankruptcy
-Cap home equity protection at $125,000 if the debtor purchased a house within 40 months of filing for bankruptcy.

M.R.O. has no problem with voting yes on all of this. The bankruptcy laws have, for far too long, made it too easy to live beyond one’s means, say “oops,” screw your creditors, and give you a new life.

I especially like the fact that the reform places “domestic support obligations such as child support and alimony amongst the first priority claim category of non-dischargeable debts.” We have enough deadbeat dad’s and mom’s leaving their kids high-and-dry.

Tomorrow, or maybe later today if I have time, we will see where McCain stands on crime.

Until then-