Kerry On Fiscal Discipline

By borrowing from future generations to give tax relief to those who need help the least, George W. Bush’s economic policies have, for the first time in history, forced the federal government to spend $1 billion more EACH DAY than it takes in.

President Bush’s exploding deficits are destroying the solvency of Social Security and Medicare and he has placed the enormous burden of saving these programs on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. John Kerry believes that we need a smaller and smarter government that wastes less money. John Kerry’s plan will:

Cut the Deficit in Half: John Kerry is committed to balancing the budget. He has put forward a sensible plan that will at least cut the deficit in half in his first term, while investing in economic growth and investing in workers.

A Balanced Budget Summit: The best way to get to a balanced budget is not in partisan bickering, but in bipartisan cooperation. As President, John Kerry will call a Balanced Budget Summit that will require all sides to work together to make at least temporary sacrifices -- even in their top priorities -- as part of a concerted effort to restore fiscal discipline and fight for our future.

End Special Tax Breaks: To restore fiscal discipline and strengthen our economy, Kerry will repeal Bush’s special tax breaks for Americans who make more than $200,000.

Cut Excesses in Government: One of the Bush Administrations well-kept secrets is that under his watch the size of government has actually gotten bigger – not smaller. John Kerry will reduce the size of the Federal government by: bringing spending down to the level of GDP it was under Clinton, requiring federal agencies to submit annual plans to reduce energy costs by 20 percent by 2020; cut the Federal government’s administrative costs by five percent; cut the number of political appointees and ban providing bonuses for political appointees; cut fraud and abuse in government programs – fraud and abuse is estimated to cost $12 billion in Medicare alone and end rules that prevent the Federal government from having the same purchasing authority as the private sector.
Reign in Out of Control Spending

Restore Budget Rules to Stop Runaway Spending: John Kerry believes we need to reverse the new budget rules Republicans in Congress have established that make it easier to spend into deficits with fewer votes. He will also review and reassess all discretionary spending programs to determine their effectiveness and whether they should continue to be funded.

Implement the McCain-Kerry Commission on Corporate Welfare: Powerful special interest groups make it hard to cut special tax loopholes and pork barrel spending projects. John Kerry supports a Commission that would recommend cuts and require Congress to vote on all recommendations, so no single special interest could fight for pet projects.

Pass a Constitutional Line-Item Veto to Reduce Corporate Welfare and Excessive Spending: Under Kerry’s plan, the President would identify wasteful spending items in the budget and submit the list to Congress to vote on in an up-or-down fashion – saving billions of dollars.

<>

I'm glad someone is addressing corporate welfare. Time for some new welfare reform :evilgrin:

Kerry makes good sense.

Did I mention that Bush is a likeable guy?

Would this thread last longer if I called it "Kerry's economic plan was better than poopy-pants Dean?"

ya' think?

Yet another example of a Dean supporter evading the issues. It's sad, really. Pathetic. (sorry, that's my standard soap opera line ;-) )

and it was a joking response to your "poopy-pants" remark.

I'll put a <grin> or a :] next time.

Have you had the opportunity to take a look at Kerry's plan yet? It's pretty impressive. What's your guy candidate going to do to fix the mess we've ended up with?

your words, or copied from Kerry's page? I don't see where you've started a discussion by pasting Kerry's words like that. I guess if you want a discussion, discuss the differences between his plan and someone elses.

I'll add (without looking at Dean's page) that I prefer to have all the tax breaks repealed, and work towards having a balanced budget while alleviating much of the fiscal pain states are taking so that state taxes can be lowered. Dean has proven that fiscal responsibility is one of his main goals, as seen by his balancing the budget in VT for 11 straight years (without a balanced budget amendment, I might add).

in overemphasis on balanced budgets in very poor economic times. That's one of the reasons Hoover couldn't shake the depression. He kept focusing on balancing the federal budget, raising taxes, etc., and paid less attention to the problems real people were encountering.

I've compared the pages of the two candidates, and frankly, didn't think that there was any comparison whatsoever in the thinking and planning that the two men have done on this very critical issue.

Balancing a budget isn't an economic plan. It's a very noble goal, but obsession with it could spell even worse disaster than we're experiencing now.

Very helpful to the discussion on economic polices. Thanks so much for your informative post that has no tinge whatsoever of 'bashing'.

I've worked with online communities for a very long time. Never one quite this much like "herding cats", but fairly active ones nonetheless (nothing political before, this was my first purely political "community).

As much as folks like to say they hate the flame fests, things sure get busy when they occur. It's like they love to hate them.

I absolutely ADORE Kerry's economic plan. He's done his homework on the issues, that's for certain. There was an article somewhere (damn my alzheimers) that talked about how he was going about developing his economic plan, and I was just sooo impressed.

Have you seen the speech? Read the economic plan? They are both amazing. The man really does understand how to prepare America for the 21st century world economy! AND he knows how to get things done in Washington!

Now if he could just say that instead of telling me about the time he was down at the local shelter and talked to this girl with no legs that made him decide that he might want to get some people to discuss this so he could come to the conclusion that what he is talking about today is relavant to the question he is responding to.

He might just get somewhere!

on edit: I just relized thats post #500 for me .... you know that reminds me of the time i went to seattle and talked to those homeless people and they told me about.... you get the idea.

Have you read Kerry's economic speech?

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0828.html

I think your little story is a terrible mischaracterization of someone who has put a tremendous amount of thought and planning into what to do with the mess Georgie Porgie is leaving us.

To Edwards position, especially the emphasis on fiscal responsibility.

to fall fast. On fiscal policy, I freely admit that this is the area where I find myself most easily confused...not my strongest suit. Of the above, I am not sure what you mean by an "up or down fashon." I do remember that several R presidents badly wanted the line item veto, and that there was considerable opposition to it. I don't expect you to spend your time explaining, but if you have a link that explains more I would be grateful.

An UP OR DOWN VOTE refers to a direct vote on the substance of an amendment or bill, sometimes referred to as a "clean vote." Members simply vote yea or nay on it.

Many votes dispose of a matter indirectly through another motion, e.g. to table, to recommit, to amend in the second degree.

Members often seek "up or down" votes because they are less cumbersome and therefore easier to explain.

http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/upordownvote.htm

Rather than allowing debate on individual parts of a proposal, Congress can only vote yes or no. It make it much, much easier to pass (usually).

In addition to what funk said. They identify the pork programs, put them all in one bill to get rid of them, and it's yea or nay. No amendments, no debate to change this or that portion of the bill. One vote, yea or nay.

Kerry uses the sheep/mohair program as an example. Designed during WWI to make sure there was wool for uniforms. Don't need the wool anymore, but can't get rid of the program. I don't know if there's a strong sheepherders PAC or what, but that's one example. I have a friend who raised about 10 sheep a year specifically because of this program. I think she used the money for her kids' school clothes. Without it, she wouldn't have raised sheep at all because there's really not much of a market for wool. So that's the idea, why pay for a government program to support something society doesn't even need anymore.

It's been routine for just about ever for anyone who has anything to do with appropriations committees to add their own special projects that bilk millions of dollars out of the federal budget. These expenditures are largely things that have been used to "pay off" various congress critters for their votes on other matters.

Trying to tackle these items one by one can't get enough attention on any one item, and most congress critters sort of figure - you vote for my pork, I'll vote for yours. What Kerry wants to do is lump it all together, make a big fuss about it, and make congressfolks take a stand against the TOTAL pork, not their own projects or their buddy's.

I think there has actually been legislation introduced co-sponsored by Kerry and McCain to do this.

Cutting the full Bush tax cuts would trigger an economic crisis that would bankrupt the country, exacerbating the deficits even furtther. The idea of taxing and giving tax cuts at certain points in the economic cycle is the exact opposite of the supply side theory that the Republicans and fiscal conservatives throw around. The idea that you can tax the rich to the point that they will not invest but spend the money in recreational activities is a joke. Rich people like getting rich, if they can only make a million rather than ten million, they will always go for the million.

At certain periods (Keynesian economics), tax cuts to the middle and lower classes are appropriate, because this is a theory of trickle up capitalism. If a business is seeling something that people want, and people have money to buy it, they will, creating a greater demand for the product. No serious economist took the Laffer Curve seriously until the Republicans tried to sell the idea that by traxing less, the government would somehow get more money.

All that would happen with a tottal cut to the Bush tax cuts, including the middle class, would be to remove money from people spending it at grocery stores, or on shoes, or to pay their rent, and these businesses would simply becom less and less able to hire nwe people. All you really need to do is cut the portions that are going to people buying yachts and polo ponies. While that may effect some businesses, those who are rich enough are still going to be able to buy the yachts and ponies, so it will not effect those industries all that badly.

Bottom line is that to repeal the tax cuts simply will RAISE the amount of money taken out of middle class families paychecks, and adversely effect them and the economies that they put their money into (their daily life).

It's one of the things I liked best about Nader's platform. It is a great antidote to the "tax-and-spend liberal" label. I would feel a whole lot better about the taxes I paid if I didn't think it was being wasted on a bunch of crap.