What about the 'fax' of the matter?

Dr. Dean said that was "silly," explaining that he had only threatened the Republican-controlled Vermont Legislature that the elderly would lose their prescription coverage if they did not pass a cigarette tax, which they eventually did.

Mr. Kerry said, "It's not silly, it's what he said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/10/politics/campaigns/10DEMS.html

"We're going to propose a combination of cuts in (health) benefits, increasing co-payments and deductibles to the extent allowed by federal law, and increasing General Fund dollars," Dean said in a recent interview.

"Medicaid now covers a certain number of benefits, and we are going to recommend to the Legislature that they not cover certain benefits," he continued. "What we are not going to do is remove anybody from the health insurance rolls."

The state's Medicaid budget has been growing steadily over the last several years, pushed both by Dean's aggressive efforts to expand the number of Vermonters who qualify for the program, as well as by the swiftly rising cost of prescription drugs and other medical treatments.

Dean and the Legislature in recent years have financed some of the Medicaid growth by turning to special revenue sources such as a cigarette tax or the proceeds of a legal settlement with tobacco makers. But those funds are reaching their limits, and will not be able to protect the state General Fund in the coming years.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/archives/healthbud.html

* Medicaid: Gov. Howard Dean proposed deep cuts in the health insurance program that serves the poor. In particular, he suggested eliminating some medical programs and increasing the amount that people must pay for their pharmaceutical assistance. The House voted to restore some of those cuts, but only by as much as a 36-cent per pack increase in the cigarette tax would fund. The Senate Appropriations has recommended to the full Senate restoring nearly all the spending because the Senate has agreed to a cigarette tax increase of 67 cents per pack. The Senate is expected to vote on the budget bill containing the Medicaid proposal Monday. Differences then would be negotiated.
http://timesargus.com/Legislature/Story/46461.html

Dean claimed in the debate that this was all about his desire to get a cigarette tax passed.
These news articles suggest the motivation was budgetary.
What is the truth?

and you've misquoted Dean as saying it was 'all about his desire to get a cigarette tax passed.'

I don't have a transcript. I'm using my memory and this from the NY Times:

Dr. Dean said that was "silly," explaining that he had only threatened the Republican-controlled Vermont Legislature that the elderly would lose their prescription coverage if they did not pass a cigarette tax, which they eventually did.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/10/politics/campaigns/10DEMS.html

Do you have a transcript? What's the exact quote? Because I don't think I've mischaracterized based on what it says in the Times.

WOODRUFF: Governor Dean, before you sit down, I've just been handed a document. I think it came out of the press room that Senator Kerry's staff has been distributing some comments about what was said. Among other things they are saying that you, Governor Dean, tried to kick Vermont seniors off their prescription drug plan. That's relevant to what you were just saying here, so do you want to respond to that?

DEAN: Does that go along with the fact that I'm just like Newt Gingrich, too, and I tried to undo Medicare.

That's silly, of course. What I did try to do was get a cigarette tax past the Republican House. They wouldn't pass them. I told them if they didn't pass a cigarette tax to pay for our health care program, then they wouldn't be able to fund seniors' prescriptions.

They passed the cigarette tax, as I knew they would.

WOODRUFF: Senator Kerry, what about that?

KERRY: Well, it's not silly. It's what he did. I mean, it's sad. But he in fact, in order to balance his budget, terminated -- called for the full termination of what was called the V-Script program, and also turned to seniors and made prescription drugs more expensive for them in order to balance the budget.

Now, that's a fact. I didn't raise this, and I didn't know they were saying that, and it's sort of separate from where we were.

What I want to come back to, there are two ways for you to have lower prescription drug costs. One is you could hire Rush Limbaugh's housekeeper...

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

... or you can elect me president of the United States.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/09/se.03.html

Clearly I did not misrepresent what Dean said -- he claimed "What I did try to do was get a cigarette tax past the Republican House." and Kerry called him on it, saying that it was "in order to balance the budget". And a quick search on google seems to back up Kerry. Now I don't know if this is the definitive answer -- I'm certainly no expert on the Vermont budget -- but these are the facts we have to go on.

backs Dean up.

Medicaid: Gov. Howard Dean proposed deep cuts in the health insurance program that serves the poor. In particular, he suggested eliminating some medical programs and increasing the amount that people must pay for their pharmaceutical assistance. The House voted to restore some of those cuts, but only by as much as a 36-cent per pack increase in the cigarette tax would fund. The Senate Appropriations has recommended to the full Senate restoring nearly all the spending because the Senate has agreed to a cigarette tax increase of 67 cents per pack. The Senate is expected to vote on the budget bill containing the Medicaid proposal Monday. Differences then would be negotiated.

Note that the cigarette tax went from 36 to 67 cents per pack (that is an increase I think) and note the use of the word because. That is usually the word one uses to answer the question why did something happen. Before the Senate passed that tax the cuts would have had to be made after they didn't. Just like Dean said, fancy that.

Dean said the genesis of the whole thing was his attempt to "try to do was get a cigarette tax past the Republican House". These articles show that to be false. It was an attempt to cut benefits:

"We're going to propose a combination of cuts in (health) benefits, increasing co-payments and deductibles to the extent allowed by federal law, and increasing General Fund dollars," Dean said in a recent interview.

"Medicaid now covers a certain number of benefits, and we are going to recommend to the Legislature that they not cover certain benefits," he continued. "What we are not going to do is remove anybody from the health insurance rolls."

The state's Medicaid budget has been growing steadily over the last several years, pushed both by Dean's aggressive efforts to expand the number of Vermonters who qualify for the program, as well as by the swiftly rising cost of prescription drugs and other medical treatments.

Dean and the Legislature in recent years have financed some of the Medicaid growth by turning to special revenue sources such as a cigarette tax or the proceeds of a legal settlement with tobacco makers. But those funds are reaching their limits, and will not be able to protect the state General Fund in the coming years.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/archives/healthbud.html

Dean wanted to cut benefits in order to get spending under control, not in order to "get a cigarette tax past the Republican House".

* Medicaid: Gov. Howard Dean proposed deep cuts in the health insurance program that serves the poor. In particular, he suggested eliminating some medical programs and increasing the amount that people must pay for their pharmaceutical assistance. The House voted to restore some of those cuts, but only by as much as a 36-cent per pack increase in the cigarette tax would fund. The Senate Appropriations has recommended to the full Senate restoring nearly all the spending because the Senate has agreed to a cigarette tax increase of 67 cents per pack. The Senate is expected to vote on the budget bill containing the Medicaid proposal Monday. Differences then would be negotiated.
http://timesargus.com/Legislature/Story/46461.html

We have had umpteen threads blaming Dean for the very cigarette tax that was passed in Vermont (threads where I have agreed the tax was his idea BTW) now you are pretending that he had nothing whatsoever to do with that increase. He presented the legislature with a choice either increase taxes or cut this. They chose the increase. That is called leadership.

BTW if you show me where you disputed the idea that Dean was to blame for those cigarette tax increases then I will entertain your posts here.

I won't ask you to defend anything anyone has said but you (and maybe, Dean). Please do the same for me.

and you will see I am right and you are wrong here. As to the issue of what other people say you commented in those threads and yes if you read articles posted by other people, comment on them as proving Dean is a person who favors regressive taxes, then you should be assumed as believing he increased the taxes in question.

and to only hold me accountable for my own words. Is that really an unfair request? Could you please respond?

so I apologize for saying that. I admit I still think you agreed with those posts but I can't prove it so I won't say it.

and I have never before participated in a discussion concerning Vermont's cigarette tax. I never even heard of it before last nights debate.

she practically FORCED kerry to attack dean. it is clear that kerry had no interest in doing so-- he turned it around instantly. even made a little joke. seems dean has a little problem on his hands.

i still think woodruff is a FOX lacky.

Kerry didn't want to attack Dean personally but he was all too willing to use paid staffers to do his dirty work.

Toughens Dean up for the superslimeballs!

It's standard campaign ops that CNN injected into the LIVE debate. They could have EASILY targeted ANY of the candidates and read ANY of their faxes.

but the other poster pretended Woodruff got the fax from the Tooth Fairy. She didn't.

..."Woodruff got the fax from the Tooth Fairy". i know it came from kerry's campaign; the problem is woodruff using backstage notes onstage. it could have been against anyone-- i still don't like woodruff's tactics...

and likely a Bush loyalist intent on causing a backlash against Kerry.

a person who works for Kerry. It isn't the producer's fault Kerry's fax turned out to be inacurate.

there enough paper flying around during debates to destroy a significant chunk of the rainforest. woodpuke picked out one piece of paper-- it could have been from anyone's camp. it was unprofessional and opened up the door for even slimier networks to abandon their supposed stance as "impartial" moderators. that is the real problem; not who's camp it came from.

direct your anger at the real problem: woodruff trying to chip away FOX viewers by being the slimiest dog on the block.


edited subject; it looked mean... i wasn't out to be mean ;-p

She was curious about what occurred.

Thanks :hi: In fact, I just got here due to this advice.

Think I see the whole picture now.

Lots of screaming and yelling. But the question was valid (from the Kerry camp), the response was valid (almost wish it was expressed more at the federal level as in : if you cut these taxes - some of YOUR services can not be funded... that is: put it back to your constituents to make a choice a or b.), raising it is valid as it is a more pragmatic governing approach and folks should realize this. The response is shows a legitimate way of forcing legislators to prioritize (legitimate - though not all might agree).

To me - the flames on the points (what did Dean say or not say; the Kerry is a rat) are missing the point. A) Standard to send items to press for the post debate discussions; not standard for the debate to be 'stopped' (in a manner) and the comments to be injected into the debate. I doubt that was predictable to the Kerry folks. B) The question (and flames) isn't whether or not Dean is "scum" for "threatening programs" - it was that this is one approach of Democratic governors - forcing the leg. to prioritize around taxing and spending. I say one approach, as not all do this. It is more Clintonesque, and folks need to decide if this is how one wants the federal government to be centered (priority around fiscal priorizing, vs. prioritizing around specific policies - and dealing with the financials second.) There are arguments and examples of success from both directions. Legitimate to discuss that.

From only reading later accounts, it appears that the real event of the fax in the debate - is around the media behavior.

I agree.

But Dean's statement: "What I did try to do was get a cigarette tax past the Republican House. They wouldn't pass them. I told them if they didn't pass a cigarette tax to pay for our health care program, then they wouldn't be able to fund seniors' prescriptions."

does seem to mischaracterize this as a fight about a cigarette tax, rather than an attempt to control spending. salin? comments?



PS -- where did you get the ' "scum" for "threatening programs" ' bit? Who said that? Not Kerry, that's for sure.

by the late 1980s nearly everything in Washington was spoken of as "revenue neutral" as the goal. Not always the realities.

But when the GOP has gone on tax cut binges - they never seem to tell the public WHAT has to be cut - that is WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE - of that cut. Same with rejecting increase in revenues to pay for new programs.

Personally, this has been a pet peeve of mine for years against the anti-tax crusaders. Locally a solvent ambulence service has, for the past two years, run in the red by several hundred thousand dollars. The local govt pays very little, and the public hospital footed the bill. It will not be able to for much longer. Yet there is great "further cut tax" pressures. What noone is saying is - how long will it be before the ambulance service is cut, or only goes out if the person is need can verify that they have insurance before the ambulance run? Thus, I fully understand the context. It was pushing the legislature to prioritize. Was it more important to fund this program (which is what it takes to be in existence), or to fight the means for funding it. Others may disagree with this approach of show down. Vive le difference.

used to make him appear the bad guy and make Dean appear the victim.

It was done, apparently, on the cuff. Could be a make Kerry look bad (for sending it) impulse; just as easily could be a "gotcha" on Dean impulse. Most likely it was a "let's make 'em fight and hope it gets ugly" impulse which would degrade both.

From only reading later accounts, it appears that the real event of the fax in the debate - is around the media behavior.

exactly; i am not so much concerned with what was said either way, but the fact that fluffernutter popped offstage comments in the middle of the debate. it's a bad precedent to set... it takes away from the debate itself, and inserts editorial mangling from the supposed "moderators". RECALL WOODRUFF!!!

anyone who has dealt with children can tell you exactly what Dean was doing. Just like children who wish to misbehave without consequences the Republicans in Vermont wanted to spend money which didn't exist. And just like I tell a child that he can call another child a name if he wants a consequence Dean said you can refuse to raise the tax if you wish the consequence. If the governor of Alambama to name one had done this maybe his tax increase would have passed.

One is Liberal Oasis' take on the actual content of the allegation:

http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/100503.htm#101003

snippet:

Dean responded in stride:

That's silly, of course. What I did try to do was get a cigarette tax past the Republican House. They wouldn't pass them.

I told them if they didn't pass a cigarette tax to pay for our health care program, then they wouldn't be able to fund seniors' prescriptions.

They passed the cigarette tax, as I knew they would.

Kerry then said:

Well, it's not silly. It's what he did. I mean, it's sad.

But he in fact, in order to balance his budget, terminated -- called for the full termination of what was called the V-Script program, and also turned to seniors and made prescription drugs more expensive for them in order to balance the budget.

Who’s right?

Kerry’s right on the technicals, but he leaves out a huge chunk of context.

Dean did propose such a budget. But it was a dare. A scare tactic. Political gamesmanship to get what he wanted.

and the other, a behind the scenes look at how it became part of the debate:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1010debate-side10.html

snippet:

When the cameras focused on the Democratic presidential candidates Thursday, a more heated political debate flared behind the scenes at Phoenix City Hall.

A steady stream of Democratic Party volunteers delivered, hot off the copier, campaign press release attacks on opponents. They had headlines like "Fact check: Clark flip-flopped on Iraq" and "The rush to war: Gephardt instrumental in launching Bush's 'miserable failure.' "

Some of the papers referred to statements uttered just minutes before by a candidate. They were distributed to more than 100 media members from around the nation, who watched the televised event inside a designated press center.

But one of the impromptu critiques accidentally made its way into the debate itself. During an audience question-and-answer period, CNN moderator Judy Woodruff said she was just handed a "document" from the campaign of Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry saying Howard Dean tried "to kick Vermont seniors off prescription drug plan" when he was governor. She then pressed Dean for a response. He called the accusation silly.

In the format of the debate, it is silly to say "he leaves out a huge chunk of context". Just how is Kerry supposed to include the context in the short time he has to speak -- and it sure didn't seem like an issue he wanted to spend a lot of time on. As you say, Kerry was 'right on the technicals' -- the facts of the matter. The context doesn't change that -- and it's not Kerry's job to spin the matter in a way favorable to Dean.

Dean never said he didn't threaten to make the cuts. He said he did so for a specific reason. It was both true and incidently worked.

Dean: What I did try to do was get a cigarette tax past the Republican House. They wouldn't pass them. I told them if they didn't pass a cigarette tax to pay for our health care program, then they wouldn't be able to fund seniors' prescriptions.

They passed the cigarette tax, as I knew they would.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/09/se.03.html

That's what Dean says now. What did he say prior to proposing these cuts?

Rapid growth in health-care spending is threatening the state's ability to finance other areas of Vermont government.

In response, Gov. Howard Dean and officials in his administration say they expect higher growth in the state budget next year, as well as cutbacks in state health benefits.

"We're going to propose a combination of cuts in (health) benefits, increasing co-payments and deductibles to the extent allowed by federal law, and increasing General Fund dollars," Dean said in a recent interview.

"Medicaid now covers a certain number of benefits, and we are going to recommend to the Legislature that they not cover certain benefits," he continued. "What we are not going to do is remove anybody from the health insurance rolls."
http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/archives/healthbud.html

Where's all the 'we need a cigarette tax, so let's use these potential cuts as a negotiating tactic' talk? Nowhere - it's all about the budget -- and there's nothing wrong with that, unless you lie about it later in a Presidential debate.

Dean would not say just how much money he hopes to save by cutting Medicaid benefits or by increasing premiums and co-payments charged to enrollees. An administration proposal last year would have saved some $2 million by increasing fees charged to Medicaid recipients when using health services.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/archives/healthbud.html

* Medicaid: Gov. Howard Dean proposed deep cuts in the health insurance program that serves the poor. In particular, he suggested eliminating some medical programs and increasing the amount that people must pay for their pharmaceutical assistance. The House voted to restore some of those cuts, but only by as much as a 36-cent per pack increase in the cigarette tax would fund. The Senate Appropriations has recommended to the full Senate restoring nearly all the spending because the Senate has agreed to a cigarette tax increase of 67 cents per pack. The Senate is expected to vote on the budget bill containing the Medicaid proposal Monday. Differences then would be negotiated.
http://timesargus.com/Legislature/Story/46461.html

What this doesn't say is "Dean tried to pass a cigarette tax, and after some tough negotiating with Republicans, got it through".

We can read what it does say.

Nick J, you may remember him as no friend of Dean, has posted article, after article blaming Dean for the cigarrette tax. Your own post mentions it here.

* Medicaid: Gov. Howard Dean proposed deep cuts in the health insurance program that serves the poor. In particular, he suggested eliminating some medical programs and increasing the amount that people must pay for their pharmaceutical assistance. The House voted to restore some of those cuts, but only by as much as a 36-cent per pack increase in the cigarette tax would fund. The Senate Appropriations has recommended to the full Senate restoring nearly all the spending because the Senate has agreed to a cigarette tax increase of 67 cents per pack. The Senate is expected to vote on the budget bill containing the Medicaid proposal Monday. Differences then would be negotiated.


Just where did this tax come from. Is it really your contention that due to a new paper account of this you are 100% sure Dean didn't want a cigarette tax? If so, is it your contention that unique among Republicans Vermont Republicans increased taxes without being asked too?

Text of Gov. Howard Dean's 2002 budget address, Jan. 22, 2002

By The Associated Press



Ten years ago, as I stood at this podium, we faced Vermont's most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression.

My speech that day was about opportunity.

That year, we focused on both -- crisis and opportunity.

We made some very difficult financial decisions. We cut programs that we cared about, yet we fought to protect the people and the causes we valued. We committed ourselves to the notion that social justice and environmental protection must be built on strong financial management.

It was in that economic environment that I asked this General Assembly to start Success by Six, and today we have cut our child abuse rate in half.

It was in that economic environment that I asked lawmakers to expand the Healthy Babies program, and today we are among the best in the nation for childhood immunization rates.

It was in that economic environment that I asked you to expand Dr. Dynasaur, and today virtually every child in Vermont has health care coverage.

We have done some remarkable things.

In my 10 years as governor we have been able to reduce the income tax -- twice -- and eliminate the sales tax on most clothing. We have reduced our borrowing, securing the best bond rating in New England.

Ten years ago I stood at this podium and said: "This administration and this Legislature cannot turn back a national recession, but we can see opportunity where others see despair."

Today, coping with another recession, I am once again asking you to build opportunities on a solid financial foundation.

Four times -- last January, last July, this past November, and just last week -- the Emergency Board lowered Vermont's revenue projections. As we started deliberation on the budget last year, we expected General Fund revenues to be just over $916 million. Today we can expect only $866 million for 2002 -- $50 million less than we expected.

At that same time last year, we also established a forecast for 2003 of $950 million. Today we can expect only $893 million of General Funds to support the budget I present to you.

For a lot of Vermont families, this is not news. As more Vermonters struggle to find work, we too must struggle to maintain the financial discipline that will allow us to move through this recession and get people back to work. While we are sympathetic to the plight of those who will receive fewer state services, we must also do our best to help people who have lost their jobs get through these difficult times.

Because of Vermont's hard work and good fortune we meet this recession in much better shape than we did the last. We know how to weather this type of storm: Discipline must be maintained and hard choices must be made

(snip)

The Medicaid budget will present significant challenges this year. Every Vermonter deserves to have access to health care, and I will continue to fight for that principle. But we cannot afford to provide all the services that we currently offer.

In this budget I once again ask that you modify Medicaid to ensure the state-covered plan resembles insurance packages offered in the private sector.

In addition, pharmaceutical costs are eroding the budget of every state in the union. In 1998, Vermont's Medicaid program spent $40 million on prescription drugs. In 2002, we will spend just under $100 million -- a 150 percent increase.

Last year I recommended an increase of 67 cents in the cigarette tax. The Legislature declined to raise this tax, leaving our rate at only 44 cents a pack. In Washington State, the tax is $1.50 per pack, and just last week New York state agreed to increase their cigarette tax by 39 cents to $1.50 per pack.

Smoking is a public health emergency, and the lack of an adequate cigarette tax is an emergency for all Vermonters who depend on the state for health care.

This budget does not include revenue increases -- such as the cigarette tax -- that the Legislature has previously opposed. Therefore, I regretfully recommend to you that we eliminate the expanded VSCRIPT program in its entirety, which is 100 percent funded through state dollars.

I also ask that we impose a 50 percent co-payment on pharmaceutical benefits through both the Vermont Health Access Plan and the remaining VSCRIPT program. These pharmaceutical programs are among the most expensive and rapidly growing parts of the Human Services budget.

If the Legislature does not raise revenues, we have no choice but to reduce the programs.

(snip)

There is opportunity in this budget.

Ten years ago we began building a network of programs for children that we have carefully expanded year by year. Today I ask you to protect programs like Dr. Dynasaur, Healthy Babies and Success by Six.

And I ask you to continue your support for affordable housing and land conservation.

We learned difficult lessons from the September 11th attacks.

While state agencies and the National Guard responded promptly, the people Vermonters count on in an emergency are those in our local communities. For this reason, I am asking for an additional $200,000 for police and fire emergency training programs.

In addition I have asked you to approve money to pay for five positions in the Department of Public Safety to work on a regional basis to coordinate and train for emergency responses.

We must also recognize that more can be done to anticipate an emergency associated with the Vermont Yankee power plant. To that end, I am asking that the plant double its $400,000 share of the Vermont Emergency Response Plan. Vermont and the communities surrounding Vermont Yankee must have more resources to cover these costs.

Finally, I also ask you to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by increasing conservation, efficiency and renewable energy programs.

Last year I asked you to approve $230,000 for heroin interdiction in our local communities. It is clear from my conversations with families across Vermont that we have a long way to go. Today I ask for $230,000 in our base budget to make these grants to our local police departments permanent.

In the area of human services, I am asking for an extra $1.5 million for the Department of Disabilities and Mental Health Services. This money will cover the caseload increase in the coming year, and provide an additional $500,000 for the inflationary pressures of the mental health agencies.

I am also asking for an additional $2.8 million for the Agency of Natural Resources. In recent years, we have not provided adequate support for our environmental agency. In fact, the Agency's budget was just over $12 million in 1991, and last year you approved a $13 million figure -- an increase of less than 1 percent per year for 12 years. The increase I seek today would be used to speed the permit process and help retain Vermont's national reputation as an environmental leader.

Finally, I ask that you support $100,000 in the base to continue the "2+2" program to assist students who want to work on our farms.

It's hard to put a price tag on a college education, but many Vermont families are finding that the cost of college -- and the debt that comes with graduation -- is simply too high. We don't know how many high school graduates steer away from the application process because resources are too thin.

Today I ask you to help make a college degree a possibility for every Vermonter who will work for one.

I am asking that in 2003 you restore the money cut from the higher education budget as a result of the rescission, and approve an additional 2 percent increase. Combined, these changes would mean a 4.6 percent increase in funding for higher education in Vermont.

I would like to do more, particularly to offset the under-funding of higher education in the early '90s. But this level of support to the University of Vermont, the Vermont State Colleges and the Vermont Student Assistance Corporation is a critical increase.

This is a down payment on a better opportunity for our children in the economy of the coming decade.

Two years ago we were all marveling at the "new economy." A year ago we were wondering about the "new economy." Today we know the "new economy" is like the old economy; it is going to go through cycles. By carefully matching budget growth to the growth of revenues -- as we have for the past 10 years -- we can mitigate the effects of those cycles.

This is the last budget I will present to this Assembly, and I know it will be a challenge for you to pass, just as it was a challenge for me to build. I will defend the principles of this budget vigorously. But together we can meet the financial challenge and set Vermont on a sound path through the next decade.

Our budget must be balanced. But we can accomplish this without ever losing sight of the values that we -- as Vermonters and as a nation -- are committed to preserve.

Jimmy Carter outlined these principles in 1977: "Our commitment to human rights must be absolute, our laws fair, our natural beauty preserved; the powerful must not persecute the weak, and human dignity must be enhanced."

My goal in this budget is to strengthen our commitment to social justice by building a strong financial base for our future. If we are to preserve human dignity, fair laws and Vermont's natural beauty, we must not abandon the financial principles that have guided Vermont for generations.

Thank you.


http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/leggie/deanbudg02.htm


Dean: What I did try to do was get a cigarette tax past the Republican House. They wouldn't pass them. I told them if they didn't pass a cigarette tax to pay for our health care program, then they wouldn't be able to fund seniors' prescriptions.

Gov. Dean's statment last night is entirely consistant with what he said in his address to the Legislature. He had recommended a cigarette tax increase the previous year, and the Legislature declined to pass it. He is a fiscal conservative, and has never wavered from that position. He gave the Legislature a choice: pass a cigarette tax, as he had previously recommended, or face cuts in a program that would be politically unpleasant. They did what he said they needed to do. They passed a cigarette tax. He knew when faced with that choice they would do it. It's called governing.

I eagerly await the Dean critics answers to this.

that definately adds more context. I'd say the facts back up both Dean and Kerry. The rest is spin.

And the facts show that, as usual, Kerry's people have taken the issue out of context.

Gov. Dean is a fiscal conservative who believes in balanced budgets. He was the Governor of a state that balanced it's budget every year in spite of no Constitutional amendment requiring it to do so. Vermont, while balancing it's budgets, still was able to provide services beyond what most other states provide to it's citizens.

What Dean did was what many Governors don't do. He simply made the legislature pay for what they wanted to provide. He had asked for a tax increase on cigarettes the previous year, and they declined. Republicans didn't want to be seen raising a "tax". As revenues fell the next year, Dean reminded them of what they didn't do, and recommended they not fund a program that Dean knew full well they would have to fund. It took guts and leadership to do what he did.

The fact is that as Governor, Dean was tough on the budget. He expected things to be funded with revenues, not loans.

It has paid off for Vermont. His fiscal policies have provided Vermon with a budget surplus, one of only two states to have a surplus.

You can criticize him all you wish, but what he said and what he did are entirely consistant with his philosophies and policies.

I don't quite understand what you and the Kerry folks see as so wrong with fiscal responsibility. Perhaps Kerry doesn't believe in it?

"There is no spin." Give me a break. What you and I together have shown by referencing source materials is that the facts back up both Kerry and Dean and this topic as an 'issue' is indeed nothing but spin.

I posted some news articles and asked "What is the truth?" -- and I think we've answered that question. As usual, the truth is not a simple case of black or white.

where was kerry right?

if you don't understand it, I don't think I'll be able to explain it to you.

And continues to do so.

The only "spin" was by the Kerry campaign to portray something that it wasn't. Dean simply told the truth of the matter.

The facts do not bear out what they tried to convey. Gov. Dean made a recommendation, based on his principals of fiscal responsibility. The legislature made the final decision. The fact is that the program(s) were funded, using revenue from a cigarette tax that Dean had reccommended the year before.

The Kerry people tried to make it look like Dean was cutting senior's benefits, when he was not. They left out the rest of the story...

What Dean said last night was entirely correct. If Kerry thinks he'll score points by taking a sentence out of a lengthy speech and eliminating it's context, he is making a serious error in judgement, IMHO.

The "fax" last night was pooly handled by CNN. It shouldn't have been read, nor offered as Woodruff did. Journalists have a responsibility to verify the facts. That was not done.

Have we pretty much beat this enough?

I thought you would be willing to bury the hatchet at least on this one, small, 'issue' once the facts were straight. Whatever else they may be, Dean and Kerry are both politicians, they are both going to spin the facts different ways. That's just politics. Big whoop.

Yes, we've beaten this one enough.

The facts don't bear out the Kerry spin, do they? Last night, Dean's answer was completly consistant with what he did. He got a cigarette tax to pay for the benefits. I don't see the Dean spin, but I could be wrong.

We both agree that each side will spin, that's the game of politics, but on this one I think it was a bit one sided. No big deal...hatchet buried.

Let me give you a hypothetical...suppose Woodruff had turned to Kerry and said, "Senator Kerry, I have just been handed a fax from the Dean campaign. In an interview recently, you admitted to personally violating the Geneva Conventions in Viet Nam, what is your response?"

Would that have been appropriate?

(There is a quote to back this up...)

WOODRUFF: Governor Dean, before you sit down, I've just been handed a document. I think it came out of the press room that Senator Kerry's staff has been distributing some comments about what was said. Among other things they are saying that you, Governor Dean, tried to kick Vermont seniors off their prescription drug plan. That's relevant to what you were just saying here, so do you want to respond to that?

DEAN: Does that go along with the fact that I'm just like Newt Gingrich, too, and I tried to undo Medicare.

That's silly, of course. What I did try to do was get a cigarette tax past the Republican House. They wouldn't pass them. I told them if they didn't pass a cigarette tax to pay for our health care program, then they wouldn't be able to fund seniors' prescriptions.

They passed the cigarette tax, as I knew they would.

WOODRUFF: Senator Kerry, what about that?

KERRY: Well, it's not silly. It's what he did. I mean, it's sad. But he in fact, in order to balance his budget, terminated -- called for the full termination of what was called the V-Script program, and also turned to seniors and made prescription drugs more expensive for them in order to balance the budget.

Now, that's a fact. I didn't raise this, and I didn't know they were saying that, and it's sort of separate from where we were.

What I want to come back to, there are two ways for you to have lower prescription drug costs. One is you could hire Rush Limbaugh's housekeeper...

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

... or you can elect me president of the United States.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/09/se.03.html

This budget does not include revenue increases -- such as the cigarette tax -- that the Legislature has previously opposed. Therefore, I regretfully recommend to you that we eliminate the expanded VSCRIPT program in its entirety, which is 100 percent funded through state dollars.

I also ask that we impose a 50 percent co-payment on pharmaceutical benefits through both the Vermont Health Access Plan and the remaining VSCRIPT program. These pharmaceutical programs are among the most expensive and rapidly growing parts of the Human Services budget.
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/leggie/deanbudg02.htm

Let's see that again:

KERRY: he in fact, in order to balance his budget, terminated -- called for the full termination of what was called the V-Script program
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/09/se.03.html

Dean: Therefore, I regretfully recommend to you that we eliminate the expanded VSCRIPT program in its entirety
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/leggie/deanbudg02.htm

and again:

Dean: Therefore, I regretfully recommend to you that we eliminate the expanded VSCRIPT program in its entirety
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/leggie/deanbudg02.htm

KERRY: he in fact, in order to balance his budget, terminated -- called for the full termination of what was called the V-Script program
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/09/se.03.html

PS -- don't try to get me to defend Woodruff, I won't do it.

you forgot the most important part of the context!

This budget does not include revenue increases -- such as the cigarette tax -- that the Legislature has previously opposed. Therefore, I regretfully recommend to you that we eliminate the expanded VSCRIPT program in its entirety, which is 100 percent funded through state dollars.

I also ask that we impose a 50 percent co-payment on pharmaceutical benefits through both the Vermont Health Access Plan and the remaining VSCRIPT program. These pharmaceutical programs are among the most expensive and rapidly growing parts of the Human Services budget.

If the Legislature does not raise revenues, we have no choice but to reduce the programs

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/leggie/deanbudg02.htm



Way to piss allright! And more evidence of why K has credibility and you do not!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

for themselves.

:nopity:

And we seem to be going around in circles.

Let's run it down again...

Kerry accuses Dean of cutting seniors benefits to "balance the budget". (The spin here is obvious. It seethes with negativity. But it is taken wy out of context, and doesn't tell the whole story.)

When asked about it last night, Dean responds that he was trying to get a cigarette tax thru the legislature to pay for the programs. Kerry implies that he wasn't.

We the go to Dean's address to the Vermont Legislature, and find that that is exactly what he was doing, as he had previously tried to implement a tax on cigarettes to increase revenues. If you read the entire speech, it is apparent that the state's actual revenues had fallen far short of projected revenues. Gov. Dean used this opportunity to coerce the legislators into raising the tax on cigarettes, which they didn't want to do, but Dean knew that they'd have to cave as they wouldn't allow these programs to go unfunded. It would have been politically lethal. It worked. The programs then were funded. They weren't eliminated, nor were seniors benefits taken away. The outcome was beneficial to everyone in the state. The programs were funded, and the budget was balanced.

Now did Dean trumpet the fact that he was going to lean hard to get the funding thru a cigarette tax increase? No. But he was politically astute enough to know how to apply the pressure to get it all done. I happen to like that. It shows toughness and leadership. You may not agree. I am a proponent of balanced budgets.

It would appear that this statement by Kerry was false: "...and also turned to seniors and made prescription drugs more expensive for them in order to balance the budget."

The legislators did not do this. The legislature passed the tax increase and life went on.

You and I just see the "spin" from differing perspectives. It's not a pissing contest, it's just a matter of perspective.

My take is that the facts don't bear out Kerry's insinuations.

YMMV. :-)

Kerry didn't 'insinuate' anything. What he said was that Dean called for terminating the VSCRIPT program. Which, according to the quote you provided, he did in fact do.

KERRY: he in fact, in order to balance his budget, terminated -- called for the full termination of what was called the V-Script program
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/09/se.03.html

Dean: Therefore, I regretfully recommend to you that we eliminate the expanded VSCRIPT program in its entirety
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/leggie/deanbudg02.htm

You talk about what 'Kerry implied'. I'm talking about what both candidates said and did. And I maintain what I said in post 28 -- they are both right and it is a non-issue other than that it shows the kind of choices and negotiating tactics Dean used in balancing his budget. If you want to again, follow up by saying, as you do in post 59, "The facts don't bear out the Kerry spin, do they?" -- then we'll continue. If you want to say it's just politics, I'm willing to give it a rest.

Thanks so much Sfecap!

Yet again a kerry attack shows where dean does what needs to be done makes the hard choices and forges ahead in order to ensure that the people are taken care of.

Yet again I am impressed by this mans principles. His willingness to stand up and do whats right over and over despite any effect it might have on him politically is exactly what is missing in washington. I cant weait till we get him in the white house so we can hopefully finally get this mess cleaned up!

Keep up the great work Sfecap it is greatly apreciated by those of us who dont have the time to research every one of these little jabs.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Dean didnt terminate anything"

What Kerry said: "in order to balance his budget, terminated -- called for the full termination of what was called the V-Script program, and also turned to seniors and made prescription drugs more expensive for them in order to balance the budget"

Cause that same quote is in my post. Kerry lied!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

KERRY: Well, it's not silly. It's what he did. I mean, it's sad. But he in fact, in order to balance his budget, terminated -- called for the full termination of what was called the V-Script program, and also turned to seniors and made prescription drugs more expensive for them in order to balance the budget.

Now, that's a fact. I didn't raise this, and I didn't know they were saying that, and it's sort of separate from where we were.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/09/se.03.html

This budget does not include revenue increases -- such as the cigarette tax -- that the Legislature has previously opposed. Therefore, I regretfully recommend to you that we eliminate the expanded VSCRIPT program in its entirety, which is 100 percent funded through state dollars.

I also ask that we impose a 50 percent co-payment on pharmaceutical benefits through both the Vermont Health Access Plan and the remaining VSCRIPT program. These pharmaceutical programs are among the most expensive and rapidly growing parts of the Human Services budget.

If the Legislature does not raise revenues, we have no choice but to reduce the programs

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/leggie/deanbudg02.htm


WTG your own links show the spin you and kery are trying to put on this! Nice out of context posting btw.

"I regretfully recommend to you that we eliminate the expanded VSCRIPT program in its entirety,"

did it mean something different from what it would mean if someone else said it? No.

Is there additional context, available in this thread, that shows he also offered an alternative? Yes.

Does that change the meaning of what he said? No.

If the Legislature does not raise revenues, we have no choice but to reduce the programs

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/leggie/deanbudg02.htm

It means exactly what he said.

The truth. My how you kerry folks hate it!

:nopity:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

John kerry went on record today as predicting the end of the world is only days away!

"we are witnessing the beginning of the last days"

I understand that there are troubles in america right now but its hardly the apocolypse. Has john Kerry lost his mind and turned into a religuos extreamist?

No im jujst writing a hit piece on kerry and taking his statement out of context. what he actually said was


“I’ve come here to Southern Arizona today, to Pima County, to tell all of you that we are witnessing the beginning of the last days of the Bush administration!!”

But I am sure this example of out of context will be lost on you. Maybe i shouldnt have posted the full quote, Then i could have linked to my little hit piece and said i provided a link with the full context.

Wow, you are brilliant! Head of the debate team?

Instead of showing an example of me doing what you accuse me of, you just do it yourself instead. :puke:

No need for me to repeat your garbage.

Show ONE example were I do not provide a link for context, unless that link had already been provided numerous times in the same thread.

that tactic won't work in Washington. Two things would happen. 1) The media and the republicans would trash him for even saying he would cut seniors benefits, resulting in a loss of job approval rating and then 2) the republicans would call his bluff and pass the cut because they want to anyway. Dean would get all the bad press, republicans would get what they really wanted (fighting a new tax and cutting benefits) and then they would use it against Dean in his re-election and say dems are the party of cutting senior benefits.

They have had two years with a Republican White House to do this and they didn't because the people will revolt. What Dean did is called leadership and discipline. Just like little children the Republicans need their noses rubbed in their bad choices.

It was a battle of a necessary cigarette tax to ensure that there were no cuts. The Legislature didn't want to pass the tax and Dean told them that they were going to have to choose between having cuts or raising the cigarette tax. It was a bit of a battle of wills, and, as usual, Dean won. This is one of the ways he used to get things passed and done. He also threatened to veto bills if they started to get off track and began adding unrelated things into bills. That's part of Vermont politics. No cuts were ever made. They wouldn't have been made, either. Dean was playing hardball with Vermont's legislature in order to protect the rights Kerry accused him of trying to cut. Everyone in Vermont knows this was the case, and when those researchers from the other campaigns came here there is NO WAY they didn't learn that, yet they don't tell the truth. It's disgusting. Dean has ALWAYS been a champion of health care in Vermont. It was his number one priority throughout his time serving here. Anyone who tries to claim that he ever tried to harm health care for Vermonters is lying through their teeth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Why don't you try addressing some of the issues raised in the thread instead of just repeating your tired "Dean is always right mantra"

you owe this poster an apology as at least here Dean was right and Kerry was wrong. Proof is in post 24.

I don't owe anyone an apology. KK does have zero credibily based on a history of making assertions instead of arguments. S/he should take a lesson from sfecap here in how to actually make an argument.

pot......meet kettle.....

:evilgrin:

glad someone did ;)

It was all over the news. Everyone in Vermont knows full well that this kind of battle between Dean and the legislature were typical. It was perfectly normal for this kind of thing to happen and most people sat back and watched it play out, in Dean's favor as a rule. No cuts were made because Dean's dose of reality was the wake up call they needed to smarten up. Dean knew full well that if the legislature didn't pass the tax and couldn't fund the drug benefits that everyone of those lawmakers who fought against it would not be re-elected. He's a brilliant politician and isn't afraid to make the tough calls or play hard ball. The Kerry campaign is just desperate for any kind of dirt on Dean and it's so bad that they'll completely ignore the facts just to allow them a chance to grasp for another straw. It's pathetic.

You have to back it up. as sfecap did.

Its called credibility. I know yours has a problem and so you are forced to back your posts up with hit pieces in order to defend your scewed positions. She on the other hand doesnt have the credibility problem you have. She has been straightforward and honest in every post i have seen from her this lends people top believe what she says as they trust her. whereass you have exactly the problem you project on her.

would give her a lot of credibility. She observed it, read it in the papers and saw it on the local news. Why can't you just accept it and stop playing devils advocate for Kerry? Kerry was wrong and Dean was right.

Dean played hardball to get important legislation passed. He sounds like a real leader to me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Kerry supporters don't like me much because I have harshly criticized him. I do that not because I support Dean, but because I really dislike Kerry. You'll hardly see me say anything at all about the other candidates, though. And regarding Kerry, I don't pretend to like him. I still wouldn't like him even if Dean weren't running. On top of that, it's not even Kerry's war vote that I take issue with. Edwards made the same vote, and I like him. I don't particularly like Lieberman, but at least I respect him because he isn't a fake and a political coward.

Anyhow, Dean did lead the legislature to believe that he might make those cuts IF they didn't pass that cigarette tax. He knew they would give in, which is why he took the route he did. You don't lead a state for over a decade and work with the same lawmakers that long without knowing how they are going to react. The Vermont media knew what Dean was doing, because it was mentioned that he was doing that to pressure lawmakers into passing that tax. It was common knowledge in the state to anyone who watched the news and read the papers.

Dean isn't perfect, and he was much more low key while governor of Vermont, but he's a damn great leader, a good man and I haven't heard any valid criticism of him coming from the competition as of yet. There's not much that can be said bad about him while still being truthful. That's why the competition is cooking up these butchered quotes and half truths to try to imply something that just isn't true. It's really pathetic and weak. I'm glad you enjoy the persepctive of someone from Vermont.

KK posts blanket assertions.

But agree with KK, so you say KK has more credibility.

Not only that, but I have never heard KK offer any grudging shred of respect for those on the other side of the argument, nor admit to the validity of any point made by the other side (as I do in post 28 for example).

And even goes so far as to admit that the motivation is " because I really dislike Kerry" -- well I don't dislike Dean -- I don't know him. I just want somebody else to be president. That's my only motivation for what I have to say.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

so your post is a blatant falsehood. Show ONE example were I do not provide a link for context, unless that link had already been provided numerous times in the same thread.

You had no problem spaming this qoute over and over. You trying to tell me that that little snipet contains the whole context of the statement?

http://216.158.54.197/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=57018&mesg_id=57084&page=

Sory but your transparent. Your agenda is clear. You may fool some people but I see you clearly.

Show ONE example were I do not provide a link for context, unless that link had already been provided numerous times in the same thread. The example you give very clearly does provide a link for context.

In fact, here is the link:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/09/dean_feared_a_horton_scenario

Here is from the rules: "Don't post entire copyrighted articles. If you wish to reference an article, provide a brief excerpt and include a link to the original source. Generally, excerpts should not exceed three or four paragraphs."

And if you look at the original post from that thread, you'll see I may have actually included more context than is allowed in the rules:

In the course of negotiating an unprecedented 10-year period for keeping his official papers confidential, former Vermont governor Howard Dean through his legal counsel explored the possibility of making the privacy period contingent on whether he was running for president, according to newly released documents.

Discussions between the counsel and the state archivist about a potentially longer sealing period centered around the possibility that a future political opponent of Dean's might seize on a document and use it as ammunition, according to the correspondence.

State archivist Gregory Sanford noted that in the talks a primary concern was "the `Willie Horton' example," referring to the furloughed Massachusetts prisoner whose crimes surfaced as an issue in the 1988 contest between Vice President George H.W. Bush and Michael S. Dukakis.

A seal longer than 10 years would have significantly eclipsed periods sought by previous Vermont governors, who traditionally received six-year seals for their official papers.

Dean, who left the governor's office in January 2003 and is now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, agreed in the end to a decade-long seal -- with no extension -- for nearly half of his official correspondence, meaning the documents will be available for public viewing in 2013. Shortly before he left office, Dean told Vermont Public Radio, "Well, there are future political considerations. We didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor."

In an interview with the Globe in July, he said in response to a request that he waive the seal, "No, it's sealed for a reason."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/09/dean_feared_a_horton_scenario

That's 6 paragraphs but since 4 of them were only one sentence, I thought I could get away with it.

So I challege you AGAIN: Show ONE example were I do not provide a link for context, unless that link had already been provided numerous times in the same thread.

perhaps I should rephrase for clarity you post the context that you think works for you. Often with links to articles that only show the snipet you want to tout as an example of Deans poopieness.

The article you reference here is a perfect example of it. Great hit piece using exactly your tactics of quoting dean out of context and using a small snipet of what Dean said to paint him in a bad light. there is no way in that article to get the full context of what dean said. Only to get the full conext of the hit piece.

Its dishonest and is exactly why you have no credibility. You do it here in this thread several times. Unfortunatelyu for you the links in this case blow your spin right out of the water when people actually bother to go to the transcripts provided not by you originaly but by others who actually got the real transcrips to refute your spin.

I'm glad you had the courage to make this admission.

Of course in the case of http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/09/dean_feared_a_horton_scenario">Boston Globe article, there is no additional context to provide other than the news article. What you are really saying is that you just don't want to see anything critical of Dean posted.

To say it is dishonest of me to post a news article, because it reflects unfavorably on Dean, shows the bankruptcy of your argument.

thats a start I guess.

I have no problem with people posting anything ctitical of Dean. Post away but dont act wounded when people call you on your BS.

And my article stands. Even in this thread after you are shown where the quotes you and kerry used were taken out of context you continued to repost them out of context, Even though the full quotes had been provided for you. Its not posting the stuff out of context the first time that bothers me. Its your refusal to own up to the fact that they were hit pieces followed by repetative repostings of the same out of context quotes. Holding onto the original idea even though it has been proven to be false wont take away from the fact that its false.

Frankly you can keep doing it all you want. I have no doubt that you will be refuted everytime by the many informeed posters we have here on DU. I find it entertaining watching you and many others here spin, myself included. Its part of what makes politics so entertaining for me.

I do think you owe K an apology as in the end she turned out to be right on this one.

and I submit that calling me dishonest and saying I quote out of context without providing an example is nothing but an attack on me because you are unwilling or unable to address the subject matter at hand.


If I've left out some context -- provide the context! Don't just insult me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.