Excellent article from this past Friday's The Globe and Mail newspaper, by columnist Neil Reynolds, entitled "Obama's tax message has a Reagan resonance." In it, he points out the shocking differences in Obama's tax plan and McCain's, and why Americans ultimately rejected the latter. Not that taxes were the only issue, but the contrasts between McCain's pledge to not raise taxes, but actually substantially lower taxes on the rich, and Obama's to offer tax cuts to help the middle class, point out the clear bias that the Republicans have towards the wealthy. Their tax cuts -- skewed almost entirely towards the rich -- were defended again and again by both McCain and Palin, in a sickening display of perfidy towards the vast majority of their base who would not benefit from the Republicans special largesse to the big income earners.
Just as a for instance, and I'm quoting Mr. Reynolds here: "For people in the top 0.1 per cent of category, the 147,000 families with incomes in excess of $2.8-million, the Obama plan provided a tax increase of $701,000; the McCain plan, a tax cut of $270,000." By what reason, except the inexorable bias of the Republicans to provide special treatment to the wealthy, could McCain justify lowering taxes on people with that level of income? It's obscene, and though many midd-class Republicans continue to believe that the the party leadership has always had their best economic interest in mind, just do the math.
Read the article. It gives a succinct history of the U.S. tax rate ups and down, and should be required reading for anyone who may come up against a Republican apologist who's still fuming that McCain won't be getting into the White House. It also paints Obama as a well-read student of history who knows how to use the past to plan a better future.