By: Carol E. Lee, Nia-Malika Henderson
Mon Dec 8, 4:22 am ET

Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.

‚ÄúHe has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it’s all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,‚Äù said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.

OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: ‚ÄúIsn’t there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?‚Äù

Even supporters make clear they’re on the lookout for backsliding. “There’s a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him,” said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America’s Future.

Obama insists he hasn’t abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the left’s bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.

Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won’t enact the tax.

Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now he’s struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he’ll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

Obama’s post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.

Now Obama’s says that on his first day in office he will begin to “design a plan for a responsible drawdown,” as he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.

The central premise of the left’s criticism is direct – don’t bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.

‚ÄúThere don’t seem to be any liberals in Obama’s cabinet,‚Äù writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. ‚ÄúWhat does all of this mean for Obama’s policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?‚Äù

‚ÄúActually, it reminds me a bit of the campaign, at least the beginning and the middle, when the Obama campaign didn’t seem particularly interested in reaching out to progressives,‚Äù Aravosis continues. ‚ÄúOnce they realized that in order to win they needed to marshal everyone on their side, the reaching out began. I hope we’re not seeing a similar ‚Äòwe can do it alone‚Äô approach in the transition team.‚Äù

This isn’t the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.

Now it’s Obama’s Cabinet moves that are drawing the most fire. It’s not just that he’s picked Clinton and Gates. It’s that liberal Democrats say they’re hard-pressed to find one of their own on Obama’s team so far – particularly on the economic side, where people like Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers are hardly viewed as pro-labor.

‚ÄúAt his announcement of an economic team there was no secretary of labor. If you don‚Äôt think the labor secretary is on the same level as treasury secretary, that gives me pause,‚Äù said Jonathan Tasini, who runs the website workinglife.org. ‚ÄúThe president-elect wouldn’t be president-elect without labor.”

During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside companies. The “card check” bill would get rid of a secret-ballot method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of workers signed cards saying they want one. Obama still supports that legislation, aides say – but union leaders are worried that he no longer talks it up much as president-elect.

‚ÄúIt’s complicated,‚Äù said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate in 2006. ‚ÄúOn the one hand, the guy hasn’t even taken office yet so it’s a little hasty to be criticizing him. On the other hand, there is legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but there is some edginess about this.‚Äù

That‚Äôs a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders holding their fire. There are signs of a struggle within the left wing of the Democratic Party about whether it‚Äôs just too soon to criticize Obama — and if there‚Äôs really anything to complain about just yet.

Case in point: One of the Campaign for America’s Future blogs commented on Obama’s decision not to tax oil companies’ windfall profits saying, “Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes Рeven those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations Рis bad for the economy.”

Yet Campaign for America’s Future will be join about 150 progressive organizations, economists and labor groups to release a statement Tuesday in support of a large economic stimulus package like the one Obama has proposed, said Hickey, a co-founder of the group.

“I’ve heard the most grousing about the windfall profits tax, but on the other hand, Obama has committed himself to a stimulus package that makes a down payment on energy efficiency and green jobs,” Hickey said. “The old argument was, here’s how we afford to make these investments – we tax the oil companies’ windfall profits. … The new argument is, in a bad economy that could get worse, we don’t.”

Obama is asking for patience – saying he’s only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.

Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have
dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts.

‚ÄúMy economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through legislation? Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they’re not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?‚Äù Obama said on ‚ÄúMeet the Press.‚Äù ‚ÄúWe don’t yet know what the best approach is going to be.‚Äù

On Iraq, he says he’s just trying to make sure any U.S. pullout doesn’t ignite “any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our interests.”

Obama has told his supporters to look beyond his appointments, that the change he promised will come from him and that when his administration comes together they will be happy.

‚ÄúI think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you’ll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of way,‚Äù Obama recently said in response to questions about his appointments during a news conference on the economy.

The leaders of some liberal groups are willing to wait and see.

“He hasn’t had a first day in office,” said John Isaacs, the executive director for Council for Livable World. “To me it’s not as important as who’s there, than what kind of policies they carry out.”

“These aren’t out-and-out liberals on the national security team, but they may be successful implementers of what the Obama national security policy is,” Isaacs added. “We want to see what policies are carried forward, as opposed to appointments.”

Juan Cole, who runs a prominent anti-war blog called Informed Comment, said he worries Obama will get bad advice from Clinton on the Middle East, calling her too pro-Israel and ‚Äúbelligerent‚Äù toward Iran. ‚ÄúBut overall, my estimation is that he has chosen competence over ideology, and I’m willing to cut him some slack,‚Äù Cole said.

Other voices of the left don’t like what they’re seeing so far and aren’t waiting for more before they speak up.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich warned that Obama’s economic team of Summers and Geithner reminded him of John F. Kennedy’s “best and the brightest” team, who blundered in Vietnam despite their blue-chip pedigrees.

David Corn, Washington bureau chief of the liberal magazine Mother Jones, wrote in Sunday’s Washington Post that he is “not yet reaching for a pitchfork.”

But the headline of his op-ed sums up his point about Obama’s Cabinet appointments so far: “This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Envisioned.”

Popularity: 59% [?]

Well, it took just two weeks to get our first broken promise from President-elect Obama. After campaigning on the promise that “no lobbyists will find a job in my administration”, President-elect Obama appears to be having a change of heart. While he and his staff have laid down rules to keep lobbyists from working in their lobby field, we find this to be an attempt to get around the campaign promise since those rules were not disclosed before the election.- Campaign-Promises Staff

Obama softens ban on hiring lobbyists

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | November 12, 2008

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama, who vowed during his campaign that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House,” said through a spokesman yesterday that he would allow lobbyists on his transition team as long as they work on issues unrelated to their earlier jobs.

Obama’s transition chief laid out ethics rules – which also bar transition staff from lobbying the administration for one year if they become lobbyists later – and portrayed them as the strictest ever for a transfer of presidential power.

But independent analysts said yesterday that the move is less than the wholesale removal of lobbyists that he suggested during the campaign – and shows how difficult it will be to lessen the pervasive influence of more than 40,000 registered lobbyists.

“That is a step back and there is no other way of seeing it,” said Craig Holman, who lobbies on governmental affairs for the watchdog group Public Citizen. Nonetheless, he said, Obama is still making “a very concrete effort to avoid what I consider a potentially corrupting situation.”

Obama, who promised to change how business gets done in Washington, railed against lobbyists in the upper ranks of rival John McCain’s campaign.

The Democrat also refused to take money from federal lobbyists, and lobbyists will be banned from donating to the transition, which is expected to involve 450 employees and cost about $12 million, $5.2 million of that from taxpayers. The remainder is to be raised privately, with a $5,000-per-person contribution limit and a ban on donations from corporations and political action committees, as well as lobbyists.

“Barack Obama has pledged to change the way Washington works and to curb the influence of lobbyists,” John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama’s transition team, told reporters. “We are announcing rules that are the strictest, the most far-reaching ethics rules of any transition team in history.”

To reinforce that point, Obama’s camp office also issued statements from two Washington think tanks often at ideological odds, which praised the rules as tough and bold. Podesta said staff members who lobbied in the last year won’t be allowed to work in their field in the transition and will have to cease all lobbying while they are part of the transition team. He said he would have “more to say” later regarding details about rules for lobbyists in the administration, apparently including whether such people could be hired immediately to work in areas on which they have not lobbied.

During his campaign, Obama declared: “I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race. I don’t take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House.”

That left unclear whether he was referring to the relatively small number of staff members in the West Wing or to the hundreds of political appointees throughout an administration. Obama’s campaign website said a lobbyist could join the administration as long as he or she didn’t work on “regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years.” He also proposed that political appointees be prohibited from lobbying the executive branch for the remainder of the administration, if they left government.

During the campaign, Obama’s anti-lobbyist rules weren’t ironclad. His staff included some lobbyists, though his aides said they stopped all such activities once they joined the campaign full time. He accepted fund-raising help from lobbyists registered with states and took money from associates and family members of federal lobbyists.

Brian Pallasch, president of the American League of Lobbyists, said yesterday that members of his organization grew weary of being pummeled by both presidential candidates. Invoking the right to present their case to lawmakers, thousands of lobbyists represent millions of Americans, Pallasch said.

The change of administration and the prospect of dividing up billions of dollars to bail out Wall Street firms and to stimulate the economy are bound to create more business for lobbyists, he said.

Pallasch said that many lobbyists have expertise on an issue that would prove helpful in improving the efficiency of the large and complex federal government. “They can use that knowledge to make the government better,” he said. “I don’t think that should necessarily be seen as a negative thing.”

Podesta said yesterday that he has heard complaints that Obama’s policy would leave “all the people who know everything out in the cold.”

“So be it,” he said. The American public expects Obama to carry through on his campaign pledges “so that the undue influence of Washington lobbyists and the revolving door of Washington ceases to exist,” said Podesta, who was President Clinton’s chief of staff in the final two years of that administration.

Podesta, in a wide-ranging update on the transition 70 days from the inauguration, said that Obama would like to begin naming Cabinet nominees as soon as possible, but would take the time needed to make the right choices.

He reiterated that Obama wants to provide aid to the troubled auto industry, but said no decisions have been made. Congress may meet next week in a lame-duck session and consider whether to approve an economic stimulus package and more aid to automakers, but it is unclear whether Republicans will support the measures. If Republicans balk, the matter will be held over until after Obama’s Jan. 20 inauguration, when Democrats will have a larger majority in Congress.

Podesta also said that Obama has no plans to meet with foreign leaders at a global economic summit in Washington this weekend, hosted by President Bush. “We have one president at a time, and it’s important that the president can speak for the United States at the summit,” Podesta said.

Material from the Associated Press was also used in this report.

Popularity: 100% [?]

An excerpt from President-Elect Barack Obama

.

Last week, President-elect Barack Obama launched a Web site with detailed information about his plans for technology, Iraq, and health care policies.

Now they’re gone.

The “agenda” Web pages on Change.gov seem to have mysteriously disappeared on Sunday. By Monday morning, they were replaced with a vague statement saying that Obama and running mate Joe Biden have a “comprehensive and detailed agenda” that will “bring about the kind of change America needs,” with the individual pages deleted entirely.

A version of the now-deleted homeland security agenda recovered from the cache feature of Microsoft’s Live Search is far more detailed, promising to convene a nuclear terrorism summit, declare the Internet “a strategic asset,” and establish a $2 billion fund to “counter al-Qaeda propaganda.” Those happen to be identical to the promises that candidate Obama made earlier this year; they have not been deleted from the campaign Web site.

I’ve posted mirror images of the vanished homeland security section, the technology section, and the newsroom section listing the different topics on the right side of the page.

Dan Pfeiffer, Obama’s transition communications director, would not say what was going on or whether the deletion meant that some of the campaign promises would be dropped. He sent CNET News a one-line e-mail message saying: “That section of the Web site is being retooled.”

This isn’t the first time that vanishing or altered documents on a presidential Web site have been noticed: President Bush got some unwelcome attention for this last year. The White House’s Web team also rewrote the May 2003 caption showing Bush on the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier after the Iraq occupation proved more problematic than expected (see before and after).

The ephemeral nature of Web publishing does raise some serious issues: if a president-elect circulates a physical press release promising to do something, and then changes his mind, there’s a paper trail. That doesn’t exist when files are added to a Web site and then quietly removed over a weekend.

The Library of Congress and other institutions, including the California Digital Library and the Government Printing Office, are trying to remedy this by doing an “end of term” crawl. That means they’re regularly crawling and archiving all .gov domains that are considered “government sites,” including Change.gov. The crawl started in September and will continue through February 2009.

The project has a varying crawl schedule, so it may not have collected the agenda pages on Change.gov, Abbie Grotke, a digital media project coordinator on the Web capture team in the Library of Congress’ office of strategic initiatives, said on Monday.

The Change.gov site has been added to the list of sites to be crawled as part of the Library’s Election Archives project–a separate effort. Gina Jones, also part of the Library’s office of strategic initiatives, said that since it’s a new site, it hasn’t been collected yet.

CNET News’ Stephanie Condon contributed to this report.

Popularity: 75% [?]

Independent analyses of the presidential candidates’ tax proposals show that those who make less than $250,000 a year would not see their taxes raised under Senator Barack Obama’s plans. Further, Mr. Obama would generally cut taxes more than Senator John McCain would for households with incomes less than $100,000 a year.

Mr. McCain would cut taxes generally on par with Mr. Obama for those making $100,000 to $250,000 a year, the analyses found, but those making $250,000 a year and above would typically pay less in taxes under Mr. McCain.

The analyses were conducted independently by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, and Deloitte, the accounting giant, at the request of The New York Times.

Mr. McCain has been sounding the traditional Republican tax-cutting theme, trying to convince voters that Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee, wants to increase taxes and spread the wealth like a socialist.

Helped by the emergence of Joe the Plumber and using Mr. Obama’s own words, Mr. McCain has insisted that Mr. Obama’s tax policies would hurt small businesses and upwardly mobile individuals, while providing welfare for low-income Americans.

Complicated proposals
Mr. Obama has been fighting those accusations in stump speeches and commercials, in recent days asking members of his audience to raise their hands if they made less than $250,000 a year. Fewer than 3 percent of households make more than $250,000.

But the tax proposals are complicated, and tax bills are affected by personal variables. Analysts at the Tax Policy Center and Deloitte tried to explain the ramifications of the candidates’ plans by applying their tax policies to various situations.

Roberton Williams, principal research associate at the Tax Policy Center, said the analysis found that: “On the average, people with income below $100,000 would get more from Obama than from McCain. From $100,000 to $250,000, they’d be fairly even under Obama and McCain. For those over $250,000, Obama increases taxes.”

Mr. McCain’s plan includes extending President Bush’s income-tax cuts and doubling exemptions for dependent children to $7,000 by 2016. He would also give a refundable tax credit to households that buy health insurance and would impose taxes on employer-provided coverage.

Mr. Obama opposes extending President Bush’s tax cuts. Instead, he proposes various tax breaks, including a $500 tax credit for each person in a household who works, a larger child care tax credit, a $4,000 tax credit each year for the first two years of college, and eliminating all income taxes for those over 65 with income less than $50,000 a year.

To reduce the deficit and inequality, he would raise the tax rate for single households with incomes of $200,000 or more and for families with incomes over $250,000. He would also raise taxes on capital gains and dividends.

The median household income nationwide is $50,233, according to the Census Bureau. The Tax Policy Center found that, for married couples with incomes of $50,000, two children and both parents working, income taxes would be cut by $284 more under Mr. Obama’s plan — by $1,005, compared with $721 under Mr. McCain’s plan.

Deloitte also examined such a couple and found similar benefits; a $700 cut under Mr. McCain’s plan and $1,000 under Mr. Obama’s.

For married couples with incomes of $500,000 with two children and both parents working, the Tax Policy Center found that Mr. Obama would raise income taxes by $3,363, from $110,955 now, while Mr. McCain’s plans would leave taxes unchanged. Deloitte found that a $500,000-a-year couple would pay $3,100 more under Mr. Obama, with no change under Mr. McCain.

Clint Stretch, Deloitte’s managing principal of tax policy, said most families would benefit under Mr. McCain’s plan because of an increased exemption for each child. That, he said, would reduce taxes for low-income families by about $230 per child and for high-income families by about $800.

‘Welfare’
To help low-income families in particular, Mr. Obama would give a “Making Work Pay Credit” equal to 6.2 percent of a worker’s first $8,100 in wages. That would yield a tax credit of $500 for a single person, and $1,000 for a couple in which both adults work. As a result, a low-income couple now paying no income taxes might receive a $1,000 refund.

But Mr. McCain has told audiences that Mr. Obama’s “plan gives away your tax dollars to those who don’t pay taxes. That’s not a tax cut, that’s welfare.”

Mr. Obama responded last week in Kansas City, Mo.: “McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people welfare.”

Mr. Obama wants to eliminate income taxes for people over age 65 who earn less than $50,000 a year. So under his plan, a single person that age with income of $50,000 would experience a $2,339 tax cut, according to the Tax Policy Center. Under Mr. McCain’s plans, that person’s taxes would remain unchanged.

“What Obama’s doing,” said Mr. Stretch of Deloitte, “is he’s taking more money from people like me, and spending it on exemptions for the elderly and on tax credits for education.”

But Mr. Stretch added, “When Obama says he cuts taxes for every working family under $150,000, I’d say that’s true.”

A single head of household with one child and $15,000 in income now receives a tax refund of $3,859, largely because of the earned income tax credit, according to the Tax Policy Center. That refund would increase by $500 under Mr. Obama’s plan. Under Mr. McCain’s plan there would be no change for that taxpayer.

According to Deloitte’s calculations, a single taxpayer who earns $35,000 a year and has no children would get a $500 tax cut under Mr. Obama’s plan — to $3,000 a year from the current $3,500. Mr. McCain would leave that person’s taxes unchanged.

Mr. McCain also proposes giving many households a $5,000 tax credit when they buy family health insurance, which costs $12,000 nationwide on average. But households would for the first time have to pay taxes on employer-provided insurance.

This story, “For Incomes Below $100,000, a Better Tax Break in Obama‚Äôs Plan,” originally appeared in the New York Times.

Popularity: 50% [?]

By Adam Ziegler

While not keeping promises is a common criticism of many politicians, studies show presidents generally do an above-average job of fulfilling their campaign goals.

A large amount of research has been done on the topic, all of which this same result, said Michael Wagner, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Between 1912 and 1948, presidents fulfilled about 72 percent of their promises, Wagner said. That number rose to around 75 percent between the 1950s and 1970s, and even though it’s dropped recently, Wagner said, presidents still have a fairly high success rate.

“Typically, presidents work very hard to keep their campaign promises,” Wagner said.

President Bill Clinton had the highest rate of successful campaign promises of the last seven presidents, Wagner said. President Richard Nixon had the lowest rate of fulfilled promises with a 56 percent success rate.

President Bush has an average promise fulfillment rate, Wagner said, and he’s been able to deliver on some of the major promises from his 2000 and 2004 campaigns.

The No Child Left Behind Act is probably the biggest campaign promise Bush has been able to deliver, said John Hibbing, a political science professor at UNL. During his 2000 presidential campaign, passing the No Child Left Behind Act was a major part of Bush’s education platform.

Despite his average success rate, Bush has failed to deliver on some campaign promises, Hibbing said – the most obvious being his promise to work with Democrats in Congress. Bush’s ability to work with Democrats while governor of Texas was one of his key selling points during the 2000 election, Hibbing said, but that level of cooperation disappeared after Bush was elected president.

“He’s become perhaps the most polarizing president in terms of Republican support and Democrat opposition,” Hibbing said.

Bush’s promise to pass a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage during the 2004 campaign is another example of a promise that never came through, Wagner said.

Even though presidents put a lot of work into fulfilling their campaign goals, a variety of factors, including a president’s popularity and a lack of Congressional support, can lead to promises going unfulfilled, Hibbing said.

Lack of support in Congress is one of the most common reasons presidents’ don’t fulfill all their campaign promises, Hibbing said. If the opposing party controls Congress, they generally don’t support the president’s legislation, which makes it increasingly difficult for presidents to accomplish their campaign goals.

“If Congress is not supportive of what they’re trying to do, I don’t see how you can hold it against them,” Hibbing said.

Hibbing said while John McCain and Barack Obama have run on some hard-to-quantify goals, such as promising change and reform, the specifics of their promises on issues like taxes and the Iraq war seem fairly feasible and could continue the presidency’s high rate of successful campaign promises.

“A lot of their promises have been pretty vague, but if you look at what they propose, it’s all in the realm of possibility,” Hibbing said.

Popularity: 42% [?]

As the financial crisis has worsened and the economy has deteriorated, basic pocketbook issues — taxes, jobs, retirement — have taken center stage in the presidential race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain.

When the new president “comes to town in January, he’ll have to work on the short-term stimulus to the economy, and the longer-term plans may get deferred,” says Clint Stretch, managing principal of tax policy at Deloitte Tax. “But the issue isn’t the economic-recovery package and what the budget looks like in 2009, but what it will look like come 2012.”

With less than two weeks to go before Election Day, Sunday Journal takes a look at the candidates’ positions on the issues that will most affect your family’s finances. We culled information from party position papers on Web sites, speeches and nonpartisan third-party reports.

Short-Term Economic Relief

To respond to voters who want immediate economic help, both candidates have proposed specific plans on how to jump-start the economy in 2008 and 2009.

Sen. Obama proposes a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to families ($500 for individuals) and penalty-free withdrawals of 15% from 401(k)s and IRAs up to $10,000. He also wants to temporarily suspend minimum distribution requirements for retirement accounts.

Sen. McCain proposes cutting the capital-gains rate on stock held for more than a year to 7.5%. He also would increase the amount of stock loss that is deductible against ordinary income from $3,000 to $15,000, and would tax withdrawals by seniors from IRAs and 401(k)s no more than 10%.

Income Taxes

Both candidates pledge to lower taxes overall, but the key point to the debate is who will be paying the bills.

Sen. Obama favors tax cuts for middle-class workers and tax increases for top earners — families that make more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 a year. He wants to extend most of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, but raise the top two marginal rates to 36% and 39.6%.

Sen. Obama wants to eliminate taxes on seniors making less than $50,000 a year and to provide a “Making Work Pay” tax credit of 6.2% of the first $8,100 in wages (about $500) for individuals earning less than $75,000 a year. Outside analysts estimate that the top 1% of wage earners would see an average tax increase of $19,000.

Sen. McCain wants to permanently extend all 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, raise the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 gradually over several years to $7,000 and keep the top tax rate at 35%, leaving “upper-income taxpayers” with “the most to gain under McCain’s plan,” according to a report by Deloitte Tax. The nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that the top 1% would see a tax cut of more than $125,000.

Estate Taxes and AMT

Both candidates support extending the Alternative Minimum Tax’s 2007 “patch” exemption levels and index for inflation, and changing the federal estate-tax law to make the $2 million per-person exemption ($3.5 million next year) portable or transferable from one spouse to another.

Sen. Obama wants to freeze the 2009 estate-tax structure, which taxes roughly 0.3% of estates — those valued above $3.5 million per person — at a top rate of 45%. According to Deloitte Tax, a $5 million estate would pay a tax of $675,000 under this plan.

Sen. McCain has proposed a 15% estate tax (down from the current 45%) on roughly 0.2% of estates, those valued at more than $5 million per person. A $5 million estate would pay nothing under this plan, Deloitte Tax notes.

Health Care

According to a report by the nonpartisan health-policy analysis and consulting firm Lewin Group, a unit of insurer UnitedHealth Group, average spending on health care in 2010 will be $4,407 per family. Both candidates want to expand access to affordable health care.

Sen. Obama proposes income-related subsidies for health insurance through a new national exchange, along with expanded access to Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and mandatory care for children. He would require employers that don’t offer health coverage to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the national plan, with small businesses being exempt (and eligible for refundable tax credits on 50% of premiums).

Under this plan, premium payments for families would fall by about $185 and direct payments for health services by $253. The Lewin Group projects the Obama plan would reduce the number of uninsured by 26.6 million people in 2010, from 48.9 million.

Sen. McCain wants to replace the current income-tax exemption for health-insurance premiums paid by employers with a refundable tax credit of $5,000 per family ($2,500 for individuals). Any unused credit could be deposited into a Health Savings Account. His Guaranteed Access Plan (GAP) would allow people denied coverage to obtain insurance through state-run high-risk pools administered by private insurers, according to a report issued by the Joint Center for Political Economic Studies. Sen. McCain wants to allow people to purchase insurance across state lines, which could reduce the effectiveness of state regulations.

Under this plan, premium payments for families would increase by about $379 and direct payments for health services by about $105. “This would be more than offset by a net increase in tax subsidies of $1,570″ and wage gains resulting from employer savings, the Lewin Group says.

The Lewin Group projects that the McCain plan would reduce the number of uninsured by 21.1 million people.

Investments

Both candidates offer plans to support small businesses, but they offer different strategies for capital gains, dividends and retirement savings that will affect investors.

Sen. Obama wants to eliminate all capital-gains taxes on start-ups and small businesses but raise the top long-term capital-gains rate on securities and qualified dividends from 15% to 20% for families making more than $250,000 a year ($200,000 for individuals). He wants to tax carried interest as ordinary income.

Sen. McCain calls for maintaining the 15% top tax rate on dividends and long-term capital gains.

Retirement & Social Security

Both candidates have moved to temporarily suspend the requirement that people over age 70¬? tap their retirement accounts, but neither candidate has offered a substantial long-term plan to overhaul the way Americans save for retirement.

Sen. Obama wants to institute a 2% to 4% payroll tax on incomes above $250,000, split between employer and employee. It would take effect in 10 years or more. He also proposes a retirement-security plan to automatically enroll workers in a workplace pension plan.

Employers that don’t offer a retirement plan would be required to enroll employees in a direct-deposit individual retirement account. Sen. Obama also proposes a saver’s credit to match 50% of the first $1,000 of savings for families earning less than $75,000.

Sen. McCain favors privatizing Social Security in programs that allow younger workers to place a portion of their payroll taxes into personal accounts invested in the market.

Popularity: 44% [?]