Yesterday, at a predominately supporter-attended town hall meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Sen. John McCain was asked some tough questions about the “central tenets” of his campaign. One question, centered around the Iraq war and the American economy, was particularly poignant:

Q: No surrender and not being willing to negotiate, how is that going to help our economy going further?

McCain: Let me put it this way, there would be catastrophic consequences. I would like to assure you, ma’am, no one hates war more than a veteran. I know war. I hate war. I believe that our economic difficulties can be addressed. I also believe that by winning in Iraq, that will reduce those costs.

Only by leaving Iraq would we be much better equipped to “address” the difficulties of the American economy — mostly because we won’t be spending $200 million per day to fight an unnecessary war.

But does McCain have any intention of getting us out of that mess? McCain has professed his express intention to stay in Iraq for another 100 years if we have to. His Bush-esque rhetoric also remains consistent: “stay the course” in Iraq and “expand defense spending.”

Starting back in 2002, before the American invasion, economists predicted that waging a war in the Middle East would make the US budget deficit soar. In January, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the US deficit is estimated to amount to $219 billion — $56 billion more than last year — by the end of 2008. This does not include the $165 billion check that Congress just wrote for additional war funding.

At the end of the day, John McCain believes that sustaining a war that could conceivably cost American taxpayers $200 million/day x 365 days/year x 100 years would help the economy. He must really not know much about the economy.

Yesterday on Fox and Friends, Dan Gainor, Vice President of the Business and Media Institute, along with conservative hosts Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade, concluded that America’s economic downturn was the result of the “mainstream media.” Doocy, Kilmeade and Gainor explained that news outlets like the New York Times and the three major television networks are talking themselves, and the American public, into recession.

Watch it:

Sure, the media has been talking about the economy, but so have LOTS of other people. It’s amazing how easily Fox News is able to ignore the opinion of prominent economists, business leaders and government officials in this dialogue.

–Warren Buffet: “I believe that we are already in a recession [...] Perhaps not in the sense as defined by economists. … But people are already feeling the effects of a recession [...] It will be deeper and longer than what many think.” [USA Today, 5/26/2008]

–Alan Greenspan: “I still believe there is a greater than 50 per cent probability of recession.” [Financial Times, 5/27/2008]

–Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “Americans are being squeezed at every possible pressure point – at the gas pump, at the grocery store, by their mortgage company, and by their employers. Just because President Bush won’t say the word doesn’t mean Americans aren’t feeling like we’re in a recession.” [Joint Economic Committee, 4/30/2008]

Fox has apparently forgotten to read the news themselves — unless Doocy, Kilmeade and Gainer think that the ‘media’ went out at night and set the price of gas at $4.00/gallon , increased the number of food stamp recipients by 7% nationally and placed 649,917 homes in foreclosure during the first three months of this year.

Angelo Mozilo

The Los Angeles Times dug up a story that we at the Wonk Room think is worth highlighting for our readers about Countrywide Financial CEO, Angelo Mozilo. Making the classic email blunder, Mozilo accidentally hit reply instead of forward in response to a message sent by a Countrywide customer seeking adjustment in the terms of his mortgage. Mozilo replied to the customer by saying:

This is unbelievable [...] Most of these letters now have the same wording. Obviously they are being counseled by some other person or by the Internet. Disgusting.

Dan Bailey, the homeowner who sent the email to Mozilo, didn’t take this response sitting down. Bailey posted Mozilo’s reply, which was reportedly intended as a forwarded to a Countrywide colleague rather than an email to Bailey, on the site that provided Bailey with the email template. He then had this to say:

To have received the e-mail that I did, stating by one of your employees, that what I did was ‘disgusting’ and ‘unbelievable’ has been just about the final straw. I am trying to do the right thing, I am trying with every ounce of what I have left in me not to blow my brains out over losing the home I have been in for 16 years. The only hope I had left was that perhaps the countrywide company did want to help the people it is servicing [...] then I receive that response to my letter. Just great. Now I know, that it is all a nice fat laughing matter to those who are supposed to help.

Mozilo, who collected $132 million in earnings last year amidst a tumbling mortgage market, thousands of monthly foreclosures and record low home prices, apparently sees websites like loansafe.org, whose mission is to offer “free foreclosure help that is based on a support community” as a personal annoyance, rather than a tool to help struggling homeowners. It’s not like Mozilo is offering any alternative, however — the Wonk Room’s examination of Countrywide’s site reveals a glaring lack of advice, or even a system, for borrowers looking to adjust the terms of their loans. It’s too bad that President Bush’s belief is that lenders should work voluntarily with homeowners, because with attitudes like Mozilo’s, it’ll be a while before we see relief to this crisis.

If Mozilo has such a visceral reaction to emails like Bailey’s, then we’d love to see how he’d react to something that is actually “unbelievable” or “disgusting” — like hearing his home was being seized by the bank.

Today, the Center for American Progress released a report by Senior Fellow Scott Lilly explaining how the weak US dollar effects the things on the minds of middle class Americans — rising gasoline, food, heating and electricity prices. The US dollar, whose value has dropped by 37 percent against the euro, 31 percent against the Canadian dollar and 17 percent against the British pound since 2000, has plummeted most dramatically in the last 18 months.

CAP’s report shows that, although a variety of factors influence the price of oil, including growing global demand and the so-called “security premium,” over half of the increased price American consumers are paying for oil is attributable to the weak dollar.

– As the dollar falls against the euro and other major currencies, oil-exporting states have been demanding more dollars per barrels of oil to protect their ability to meet expenses paid in euros and other currencies.

– Global institutional investors have tried to protect themselves against further declines in the dollar by moving money into commodity future that are denominated in dollars so that their investments remain stable when the dollar falls. The increased demand for these commodities artificially pushes up prices.

But why is the dollar so devalued? CAP’s report traces the bulk of the dollar’s decline to seven recent cuts in the Federal Funds Rate over the past nine months by the Federal Reserve. The lower the interest paid on a currency, the less likely foreign investors will will be to invest in instruments denominated in that currency, and the more likely U.S. investors will want to search for better returns overseas.

What’s most interesting is that under a devalued currency, oil companies stand to gain significantly in comparison to other businesses. Denominated in dollars, energy companies increase in value proportionately to the dollar’s decline. Exxon Mobil, for example, one of the nation’s largest oil companies, has seen its share price increase in precise parallel to the appreciation in the price of a barrel of crude oil. The government’s monetary policy, along with the weak dollar, not only create winners and losers in terms of consumers and businesses, but also benefit certain businesses far more than others.

Read the full report.

In an appearance on CNN’s Late Edition this weekend, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) top economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin dug into Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) spending plan, claiming it would expand deficits:

Senator Obama’s plan is Washington in action. It’s $2 trillion more spending by the federal government. You have to pay for that somehow or you are George Bush III.

Watch it:

Earth to Holtz-Eakin: McCain’s proposed Bush-style tax cuts for corporations and the super-rich are far more fiscally reckless than anything proposed by either Democratic candidate. McCain’s plan would effectively double Bush’s tax cuts and create the largest deficits in 25 years and the largest debt since World War 2. As the New York Times wrote:

Fiscal monitors…estimate that, even taking into account that there are some differences between the proposals by Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, the impact of either on the deficit would be less than one-third that of the McCain plan.

Holtz-Eakin would have a leg to stand on if McCain had given any credible explanation of which programs he’d slash to balance his budget.

But he hasn’t.

The FactChecker at the Washington Post gave McCain’s plan to pay for his doubling of the Bush tax cuts by eliminating $100 billion in earmarks “Four Pinocchios” (the highest rating for deceit), calling it “largely fantasy” and “voodoo economics.”

So, in this case, we agree with Holtz-Eakin. Senator McCain, “you have to pay for that somehow or you are George Bush III.”

Today’s LA Times reports that summer weather is making gasoline more expensive. The “hot fuel” phenomenon, which is nothing new to long-haul truck drivers, means that gas stored at higher temperatures actually provides less energy per gallon. The LA Times explains that:

At 60 degrees, a gallon is 231 cubic inches. But when fuel is warmer than 60 degrees, the liquid expands, yielding less energy per gallon. When it’s colder, the fuel contracts. Gas stations and truck stops don’t have temperature-compensating devices, so the pumps dispense each gallon as if it is flowing at 60 degrees — and the stations charge customers as if they are getting government-standard gallons.

For warm weather states, “hot fuel” only adds insult to injury when it’s time to fill up at the pump. A new study in California found that, when averaged over a 12-month period, gasoline temperatures were 71.1 degrees–well above the 60-degree standard.

And that’s just the average. During the summer, when temperatures are higher, this phenomenon is aggravated. Experts estimate that Californians will pay the equivalent of $.08 more per gallon because of warmer fuel. $.08 doesn’t sound like much, but when gas is already over $4.00/gallon in many parts of the West Coast, that’s no small change.

But doesn’t this phenomenon make prices higher every summer? Well, technically yes, but temperatures in California didn’t used to be so warm. Climate data shows that temperatures risen in nearly all parts of California between 1950 to 2000–averaging an increase of nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit. Again, this may not seem like a lot, but when motorists, and airlines, are burning through millions of gallons of fuel per day, this “hot fuel” summer cocktail equates to an additional $3 billion a year for consumers.

Slate Magazine published a new piece outlining some of the reasons Americans should feel lucky paying “only” $4.00 for a gallon of gas. Robert Bryce argues the relative “cheapness” of today’s gas in terms of historic prices:

The simple truth is that Americans are going to have to get used to more expensive gasoline. And while they may continue grumbling at the pump, they need to accept the fact that even at $3.50 or $4 per gallon, the fuel they are buying is still a bargain.

This is wrong on a number of levels. Let’s start with the obvious that it’s completely disingenuous to compare fuel costs in 1922 to fuel costs today.

First of all, who was actually driving back in 1922? According to a historical study of vehicle ownership, only 22.7% of Americans owned cars in 1939 (17 years later), compared to 77.6% in 2005. Econ 101 will tell you that when nobody is driving and demand for gas is low, prices will be high for a non-readily available commodity. Until people are driving themselves around, there is no incentive to innovate, mass produce, and therefore cheapen the cost of gas.

Secondly, Slate forgets that driving in Europe is not the same as driving in the United States. Paul Krugman makes this point clearly in his most recent op-ed in which he reminds readers that sure, it may cost more to put petrol in your car on the other side of the pond, but in Europe, drivers have other options — namely city-wide public transportation systems and the option of walking to work, the grocery store, or the pharmacy:

[I]n the face of rising oil prices, which have left many Americans stranded in suburbia — utterly dependent on their cars, yet having a hard time affording gas [...] Changing the geography of American metropolitan areas will be hard [...] Public transit, in particular, faces a chicken-and-egg problem: it’s hard to justify transit systems unless there’s sufficient population density, yet it’s hard to persuade people to live in denser neighborhoods unless they come with the advantage of transit access.

Slate makes one last point that goes beyond wrong and borders on offensive:

Gasoline is also cheap compared with other essential fuels. A Starbucks venti latte costs the equivalent of $23 per gallon, while Budweiser beer runs $11 per gallon.

Sorry, but Americans aren’t consuming gallons of coffee and beer every morning as they drive to work, school or the doctor. We spend a great deal more of our discretionary budget on gas than on any other commodity. Just another example of Slate’s backwards apples to oranges logic.

Our guest blogger is Joy Moses, Policy Analyst with the Poverty Prosperity program at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Newt Gingrich has recently been advancing policy proposals for reducing poverty in America. Gingrich’s description of the poverty problem reveals a condescending approach to the poor, while his tried-and-failed market-based solutions do little to help Americans living below the poverty line.

First, Gingrich assumes that poor people are culturally inferior. According to Gingrich, poor people need to develop a culture of “productivity” and that when they are around people who have money, they “learn very rapidly to show up at work on time, to actually keep part of their paycheck every week, to do all the things successful people do.” In short, poor people don’t work hard enough, don’t work well enough, and don’t save. However, the reality is:

– Full time minimum wage workers live below the poverty line. The federal minimum wage is simply not a living wage.

- Poor Americans do not work less than poor people in other nations.

- Low income people are experiencing the big squeeze of working longer hours, including multiple jobs and extended overtime just to make ends meet.

- By definition, poor people have less income to save. They are less likely to have employer-sponsored retirement plans or benefit from tax breaks that primarily go to middle- and high-income people. They pay more for basic financial services.

The second faulty assumption is that poverty is a black and urban issue. Gingrich chooses to frame his ideas about poverty around Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, and the city of Detroit. Otherwise, he refers to Native Americans living on reservations. Although such frames are an effective tool in diverting attention from troubling issues facing the U.S. economy, serious discussions about ending poverty can not be based on stereotypes or reinforce the idea that it is someone else’s problem. The reality is:

– Although poverty disproportionately affects people of color, all races are impacted, including whites who are the largest group (45 percent) amongst the poor.

- Rural communities experience levels of poverty that are similar to urban communities—14.5% and 17% respectively. And poverty also reaches the suburbs.

Not surprisingly, one of Gingrich’s primary suggestions is to cut taxes for corporations and the rich so that they will create more jobs. Nearly eight years of such tax cuts under the Bush Administration has increased the poverty rates and demonstrated that this is not a valid policy solution. Similarly, Gingrich’s proposals to encourage kids to work at the age of 14 and to only spend two or three years in high school would probably advance the contrary goal of creating an undereducated permanent underclass, but not get us very far in ending poverty.

On Monday, Chrysler LLC announced an expansion of its most recent incentive program, Let’s Refuel America. This program provides anyone who purchases a new Chrysler vehicle with three years of gasoline at a guaranteed, subsidized $2.99/gallon rate — and was apparently so successful that Chrysler extended the purchase deadline for an additional month until July 7:

“[W]e are proud to introduce an unprecedented program to help put customers’ minds at ease and do something to help working people who are worried about the volatility of fuel prices and vehicle cost of ownership,” said Jim Press, Chrysler president and vice chairman. The program “puts money in your pocket today, and allows our customers to better manage their fuel expenses.”

In an era where every day is another day of record-breaking gas prices, Chrysler’s program does have an immediate appeal. Who wouldn’t want to pay $2.99 for gas, especially when experts predict that gas could reach $7 by 2012? But when you stop and think about the premise behind “Let’s Refuel America” — artificially subsidizing gas prices and incentivizing people to buy bigger cars, drive more miles and increase the American demand for oil — you start to question Chrysler’s goals.

And it’s not like Chrysler is promoting vehicles with good gas mileage. Two of Chrysler’s best selling models, the Dodge Ram truck and the Dodge Charger, get an abysmal 13 and 18 miles per gallon during city driving, respectively. Compare this to the Honda Insight or Toyota Prius, both hybrids, which average 64 and 48 miles per gallon, and it just gets embarrassing. Chrysler is not responsible for the buying choices made by American drivers, but when 67% of Chrysler customers purchase SUVs, minivans or trucks over cars, a subsidy for gas guzzlers seems an odd way to push consumers towards more fuel efficient vehicles.

Is it possible that Chrysler executives are so concerned with maximizing short-term profits that they’re willing to ignore the consensus calls for reductions in gasoline usage, investment in fuel efficiency research and learn to minimizing America’s dependence on oil? Maybe if Chrysler were willing to take the money they’re spending in driving subsidies, and instead invest in the production and development of environmentally and economically friendly vehicles, Americans wouldn’t be in the pickle they’re in today.

Late last week, the Wonk Room reported a new analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund finding that John McCain would recklessly exacerbate the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Administration and create the largest deficit in 25 years.

When contacted by Slate magazine for a response to our deficit analysis, the McCain campaign offered this:

Spokesman Brian Rogers dismissed the CAP study as coming from “a left-wing Democratic front group” but did not provide alternative figures. “The fact that they falsely criticize Sen. McCain’s policy proposals is unfortunate, but it’s hardly surprising,” he wrote in an e-mail.

Well, needless to say, we don’t believe our analysis is false, and we are very open to a debate on its merits. Note that you can read our methodology in detail on page 3 of the report.

Unfortunately, despite supposed outreach to the lefty blogosphere and promises to run a different kind of campaign, the McCain camp seems more interested in attacking us than engaging in a substantive debate on our methodology or our conclusions.

We’ve contacted the McCain campaign for further comment on where they think our analysis went wrong, and we’ve been told that they’d “be in touch if they have a different comment” for us. We look forward to it.

McCain’s “magic carpet ride” speech yesterday asked us to consider America in 2013 in the fourth year of a John McCain presidency.

We did. Here’s what we found:

In 2013, after McCain’s four years of Bush-style fiscal irresponsibility, tax breaks for corporations, and more tax cuts for the wealthy, America would have a $780 billion deficit (4.3% of GDP) and national debt of $8.5 trillion (47% of GDP). That’s over $1.5 trillion more debt than would be accumulated under a continuation of current Bush policies.

John McCain’s 2013: More of the same, but worse.

Our guest bloggers are Robert Gordon and James Kvaal, fellows at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

New York Times editorial, April 24: This is the reality: To restore the health of the budget, let alone keep ambitious campaign pledges for spending more money, the next president, regardless of which party wins, will have to tax the American people more than any of the candidates has been willing to admit. Senator John McCain’s tax talk is particularly divorced from reality.

New York Times editorial, today: Senator John McCain scored some points on Thursday merely by acknowledging how much has to change. Mr. McCain said in a speech that if elected, he will … eliminate a tax meant for the rich that is crushing the upper-middle class.

The Times today praises John McCain for his proposal to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. The McCain campaign itself estimates that proposal will cost $60 billion a year, with no plan to pay for the cut. With 47 million people uninsured, with 37 million people living in poverty, with a “war and economic crisis” (in the Times’ words), a $60 billion tax cut for the upper-middle class surely is not a national priority.

And who will really benefit? John McCain says that his plan will benefit 25 million middle-class families, and Factcheck.org buys into the logic of that claim. But this would be true only in a world without the AMT “patch” that Congress has repeatedly enacted to shield the middle class. Although Congress each year enacts only a one-year patch, the patch is supported by large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans. There is a debate about whether to pay for the patch, but Douglas Holtz-Eakin is right to say that it is only in “fantasyland” that would Congress fail to extend it.

So, by a sensible logic—and by the McCain campaign’s own logic in pricing this proposal at $60 billion—the guts of McCain’s proposal is to go beyond the patch and fully repeal the AMT. And as between the patch and full repeal, according to the Tax Policy Center, more than 90% of the benefits would go to taxpayers making more than $200,000 a year, and nearly 50% of the benefits would go to taxpayers making more than $500,000. Only 3.6 million taxpayers would benefit, not 25 million. Here’s the distribution of winners:

As the Times instructed in its April editorial, “anyone making anywhere near a quarter-million dollars a year is in the top 3 percent or so of taxpayers.” It would be nice to give these families another tax break, above and beyond the patch. Of course, it would be nice to eliminate taxes for everybody. But leaders need to have priorities. And editorial boards too.

Our guest blogger is Henry Fernandez, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund focusing on state and municipal policy.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s unconstitutional Latino witch hunt will no longer be subsidized by the State of Arizona. It turns out that while Arpaio had his deputies stopping anyone who looked like a Latino immigrant, there were 60,000 real felons running around Arizona. Apparently Governor Janet Napolitano has had enough. This week she took $1.6 million from Arpaio and redirected it to a new state-run fugitive task force to get real criminals off the street. Of course this was supposed to have been Arpaio’s job all along.

For those not familiar with Arpaio, he is a media hound, once even doing a pilot for a comedic Fox TV police reality show. On another occasion, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down his efforts to run his own reality show via webcam over the internet because it violated prisoner rights. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal. How any of this clowning would have reduced crime remains unclear.

Without his own show, Arpaio encourages TV news cameras to ride along with his deputies as they hunt down undocumented immigrants. Lacking any particular insight into who is or is not an immigrant, Arpaio’s tactics have consistently disrupted the lives of Latino U.S. citizens and terrorized families in Phoenix and surrounding towns. He even requires that victims and witnesses of crime prove their immigration status. This absurdity actually encourages crime by ensuring that many immigrants will not report crime.

48,000 individuals charged with or convicted of felonies, including violent crimes, are currently on the loose in Maricopa County. Despite the obvious need to apprehend these people, Arpaio spends his time elsewhere. Cameras in tow, he sweeps into Latino neighborhoods with large numbers of deputies and stops as many people as possible on the basis of alleged motor vehicle violations, looking for undocumented immigrants. That these immigrants are generally hard working and not a threat to anyone, does not matter to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office. Nor does the fact that lots of citizens who do not realize their tail light is burned out are subjected to interrogation to prove their right to reside in the United States.

The Bush Administration’s Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) has cheered on Arpaio’s behavior. ICE’s lack of concern for the civil rights of Latinos is not surprising given the large number of lawsuits currently pending against ICE by Latino citizens who allege that their homes were invaded by gun wielding federal agents demanding that they prove their right to reside in the country in which they were born.

Reasonable elected officials in Arizona have long called for an end to Arpaio’s defiance of the Constitution. Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon has asked the FBI to investigate Arpaio for a “pattern and practice of conduct that includes discriminatory harassment, improper stops, searches and arrests.”

The Governor’s decision will make Arizona residents safer, even if it does not stop Sheriff Arpaio’s quest for attention.

Sen. John McCain promises that, as president, he would “cut taxes and balance the budget.” But his current economic plan would create deficits as deep as 5.7% of GDP by the end of a two term presidency — the highest federal budget deficit in 25 years — and would accumulate the biggest debt since the second World War, according to a new analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. McCain’s current fiscal plan would recklessly exacerbate the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Administration further by gutting revenues far below the average level of the past 25 years.

For the past 25 years, deficits have never been more severe than 5% of GDP, with surpluses as high as 2.4% of GDP in the year 2000. Under McCain, yearly deficits would increase sharply, beginning with $505 billion in FY2009 (3.4% of GDP) and skyrocket to $1.2 trillion (5.7% of GDP) by FY2017. In 2018 these deficits would reach 6% of GDP, tied with the largest deficits since WW2 in 1983. Current Bush policies would keep the deficit in 2017 to $660 billion (3.1% of GDP).

According to the study, McCain’s economic plan, (which includes a corporate tax cut, a full repeal of the AMT, and an extension of the Bush tax cuts) would leave a debt of $12.7 trillion (the highest since 1951 when America was still holding debt from WW2) by the last budget of a two term presidency starting in 2009 (FY2017). This debt is $3.5 trillion more severe than the one resulting from an extension of current Bush policy, which would leave a debt of $9.2 trillion (43% of projected GDP).

McCain would slash government revenues, which have averaged 18.3% of GDP for the past 25 years, to their lowest levels since before 1962. Revenues would average only 16.3 percent of GDP for the duration of his two terms. Under current Bush policy, revenues would remain above 18 percent of GDP.

This analysis currently incorporates the most generous possible savings McCain has offered thus far: an $18 billion cut of wasteful earmarks and a $15 billion “freeze” in wasteful spending, with the savings grown at the rate of GDP growth over his presidency. These “savings,” which come no where near paying for his reckless tax cuts, already include “heavy cuts in after-school pro­grams, student aid, public broadcasting, and job training.” To fill the gaping remaining hole, McCain supporters have suggested policies that would lead to “massive cuts” in Social Security.

Read the full report.

Today, John McCain flip-flopped for a second time on Social Security privatization. Maybe John McCain didn’t think anyone would notice the switch, since it came out during a hard hitting interview on Live with Regis and Kelly:

MCCAIN: What should be partisan about the fact that Social Security is going to go broke? I mean, should we be divided up among Republican and Democrat…

REGIS: Do you have a plan?

MCCAIN: Yes, sir. It’s gonna require, though, cooperation and participation by the other side. And I’ll reach my hand out…

REGIS: Is it privatization of the Social Security program?

MCCAIN: No, no it isn’t. But I would say that I support…I’d put everything on the table to start with…but second of all…young workers ought to be able to put part of their salary, part of their taxes into Social Security, into an account with their name on it. But that would not in any way effect older workers. But you’ve got to have a negotiation.

Watch it:

But just two months ago, McCain voiced a very different view on Social Security during an interview with the Wall Street Journal. When asked the specifics of his program, McCain adamantly claimed: “I’m totally in favor of personal savings accounts. … I campaigned in support of President Bush’s proposal and I campaigned with him, and I did town hall meetings with him.”

Noting the McCain’s website does not declare his support for private account, the Wall Street Journal reporter asked this follow-up question:

WSJ: Your Web site says something different [than your statement].

MCCAIN: I’ll correct any policy paper that I’ve put out that might intimate that personal savings accounts are not a very important factor.

So has John McCain rewritten his website to reflect his waffling viewpoint? No he hasn’t. Between now and two months ago Senator McCain has had two very different perspectives on Social Security, but nearly the identical, rhetorical fluff on his policy page. McCain seems to have decided it’s easier to change his Social Security policy than to change his website.

A global warming plan that weans America off dirty energy requires taking a stand against the huge utility & energy companies. But John McCain’s tax plan seems slightly more interested in lining their pockets.

An analysis from the Center for American Progress Action Fund finds that John McCain’s massive corporate tax cut would save America’s ten largest electrical utility companies and ten largest energy companies over $2.8 billion. (This is in addition to the $4 billion tax break for America’s five largest oil companies.)

Read the full analysis and see the chart here.

On This Week yesterday, McCain economic adviser Carly Fiorina restated her support of tax loopholes for big business. Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett Packard, has been a long-time defender of a gap in the U.S. tax code that enables American corporations to keep foreign profits overseas and abstain from paying domestic taxes.

The Wonk Room, which covered Fiorina’s preference for corporate tax breaks and offshoring back in April, wasn’t really surprised to hear her defending McCain’s stance on George Stephanopoulos’ show. But we were a little surprised to see how easily George was able to point out the flaw in her logic — and how transparently disingenuous Fiorina’s talking points really are.

Watch it:

Sen. McCain, according to Fiorina, understands that “you must focus on why jobs are going overseas.” That may be well and good, but what Fiorina seems to be missing, and what George points out, is that there are two separate issues. A cut in the corporate tax rate is not the same as closing a tax loophole — a tax loophole that allows business profits to remain completely untaxed if left overseas.

Even under Senator McCain’s plan, corporations would still pay 25 percent (down from 35 percent) on money they bring into the country — and that is a lot more than the zero that they pay now. As Stephanopoulos noted, this zero percent does nothing to incentivize businesses, or government defense contractors, from bringing profits back into the US.

Transcript: Read more