I caught this headline and nearly crapped my pants: Obama Tax Plan Would Balloon Deficit, Analysis Finds. As an equal-opportunity ranter and armchair expert, I’m always happy to aim my guns at my own side when they deserve it, and this one really hit me in the gut.

When Obama promises to cut taxes for the middle class without increasing the deficit, he is measuring his proposals against the large deficits that would result from Bush’s plan to extend his signature tax cuts beyond their 2010 expiration date. Because Obama wants to eliminate some of the Bush tax cuts, he would bring more money into the Treasury, permitting him to pay for new programs without increasing the deficit even more.

Holy hell. Not only is that being dishonest, it means that McCain might actually be the better choice from an economic perspective! That’s just insanity, it shakes the very foundations of my faith in Obama’s ability to turn the economy around. We’ve been in trouble, and I’ve been assuming that Obama would be the ointment for it. The national debt is over $9bil right now, so what would Obama add to it? And not only that, but who the heck did this analysis?

According to a recent analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Obama’s tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt, including interest, by 2018.

The Tax Policy Center is in fact nonpartisan, they’re even handed in their analysis and I have to admit if they said that would happen, then there’s not much reason to disagree. They know their stuff. Now this does raise the question: how does that compare to McCain’s plan?

According to the Tax Policy Center, McCain’s tax plans would increase the national debt by at least $5 trillion over the next 10 years. McCain has said he would balance the budget through massive spending cuts

Well isn’t that just precious. According to the TPC, Obama’s plan is actually better for the debt than McCain’s, but what headline does the Washington Post put up? “Obama Tax Plan Would Balloon Deficit, Analysis Finds”. That’s just great. Way to be nice and impartial.

By the way, you can check out the study itself at the TPC’s website. Amongst the conclusions?

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by an estimated $4.2 trillion (McCain) and $2.8 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years. Both candidates argue that their proposals should be scored against a “current policy” baseline instead of current law. Such a baseline assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would be extended and the AMT patch made permanent. Against current policy, Senator Obama’s proposals would raise $800 billion and Senator McCain’s proposals lose $600 billion.

McCain’s reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and might completely negate any positive effect. In contrast, Senator Obama’s proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior, particularly if the childless EITC and payroll tax rebate encourage additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals.

That’s just from the abstract, the study itself really breaks it down. At the end of the day, the very study the WaPo is citing as proof that Obama’s tax plans will “balloon” the deficit also says that McCain’s plan is exponentially worse and would offer few to no benefits for middle and low class households. Great stuff.