A time for choosing: Why I'm casting my vote for McCain
Jimmy Sengenberger, Staff Writer
Issue date: 10/27/08 Section: Perspectives
|
Now, in 2008, we have again "come to a time for choosing."
Given the stakes of this election-success in the ongoing war in Iraq, recovery from an inevitable recession, testy relations with such nations as Iran and Venezuela-I have chosen to cast my first vote for Sen. John McCain.
The stakes are high, and America needs an experienced, steady hand at the helm. Sen. McCain's distinguished service in the U.S. Navy, House of Representatives and Senate prove, beyond any doubt, that he possesses the experience and judgment required of the times.
Contrary to Sen. Obama, who has very few notable bipartisan accomplishments, Sen. McCain's record, much to the distaste of conservatives like myself and often to the pain of the President, is one of reaching across the aisle to get things done, often at great political risk. Whether it be on immigration, climate change, Guantanamo Bay, the Gang of 14, what have you, Sen. McCain has a proven record of bipartisan achievement and substantial government experience.
As Hillary Clinton put it, "[Sen.] McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
Reluctant conservatives like me may disagree with McCain half the time, but the choice is clear.
With recession imminent, it is essential that the right policies be instituted to stimulate the economy and encourage investment. Sen. Obama's proposal to raise taxes in a time of economic hardship ignores the fact that the top 1% already pay 40% of all income taxes, according to the IRS; the top 5% pay 60% of the tax bill. Not to mention he has a solid record of tax hikes, not tax cuts.
Sen. Obama's proposals to increase taxes on capital gains (investments), corporations, Social Security and income (actually those in the top-two income tax brackets (making $182,000 and above, not just $250,000), as the liberal, Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman acknowledged in the New York Times last week) would discourage the type of economic involvement that pro-growth policies would work to encourage.
Herbert Hoover's tax increases in 1932 helped jumpstart the Great Depression, but when Reagan cut the 70% rate down to 28%, it led to a significant turnaround in a recessionary economy. In a serious economic downturn, it is essential that the government institute pro-growth policies to encourage job creation and investment in the economy, especially when it is so necessary that capital (wealth used to finance business operations) be injected into the market.
Be the first to comment on this story