What is Dean's position on the Bush tax cut?

Does he want to keep it, or repeal it, or just repeal part of it?

I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

BY HOWARD DEAN
Friday, August 22, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

The economy is going through tough times. The average American family is in trouble. The economy has been losing good jobs, and the benefits that went with them, at an astonishing rate.

It doesn't have to be this way. Our economy has proved its resilience time and again. The skills and productivity of the American worker are the envy of the world. When we have had clear direction and effective leadership, we have created millions of jobs, raised the incomes of all Americans and diminished the gap between rich and poor.

But over the past two and a half years, the number of unemployed Americans has gone from under 6 million to over 9 million. Worse, the number of long-term unemployed--those who have been looking for a job for more than 6 months--has tripled to almost two million workers. These numbers are part of a larger story. The promise of America has been based on the understanding that hard work would pay off in a better job and a brighter future for the next generation. We need to restore that promise. Millions are unemployed, and millions more are underemployed in dead-end jobs. Wages are stagnant. Job security is disappearing.

One out of four U.S. workers is free-lancing, employed in a temporary job, self-employed or working part-time. Studies show that workers who lose manufacturing jobs take an average 13% pay cut in their next employment.

When companies cut back on health-care benefits and guaranteed pensions, workers are hit hard. Studies by scholars, including Karen Kornbluh of the New America Foundation, show that families compensate by running harder, and that stress can become unbearable. There are elderly parents to care for, children to educate, and the need to save for a secure retirement. Married couples now work 10 weeks longer each year than they did in 1968, and live with an accumulation of debt that threatens financial disaster.

As Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi point out in their forthcoming book "The Two Income Trap," today's two-income families earn 75% more money than their single-income counterparts did a generation ago, but they actually have less money to spend. For many, personal bankruptcies have become the rule rather than the exception. This year more children will live through their parents' bankruptcy than through their parents' divorce.

In about 500 days, the next president will take office. There will be an inaugural address, full of talk of promises and hopes. Let us hope the next inaugural speech holds up better in the perspective of history than the last one.

Promising a "compassionate" administration, President Bush pledged to "recover the momentum of our economy," "reward the effort and enterprise of working Americans" and confront economic problems now, "instead of passing them on to future generations." Instead, he's offered tax cuts that don't address our needs, and saddled our children with debt for generations to come. On this president's watch, the federal debt has grown by over $1 trillion. That's the rough equivalent of putting $3,500 on the charge card of every American.

How did our nation come to this place? The answer is simple--the economic policies of this administration are aimed at ideological goals, not help for the average American.


We can do better. As president, my economic policies will be focused and clear. I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation's infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it.

The task of meeting the needs of American families begins with health care. My plan will not only insure millions of Americans who are without adequate care today, it will reduce costs for small business, states and communities--freeing up funds that can be used to grow businesses and meet other national and local priorities.

An important part of my program for a full-employment recovery will be extending a helping hand to states and communities. My policies as governor kept Vermont strong fiscally; but all over America, the financial resources of other states and cities are strained to the limit. Teachers are being laid off, highways lack repairs, firehouses are closed. Instead of tax cuts that have not created jobs, we need to make investments in America. I will increase federal aid for special education, and provide more temporary help to the states--for homeland security and school construction and infrastructure modernization. And I will increase the availability of capital for small businesses, so that they can invest in new technology and create more jobs.

No program for economic recovery and growth can ignore the tax system, particularly the bizarre collection of tax expenditures, preferences, credits and deductions which has directed revenues away from the federal treasury and into uneconomic tax avoidance schemes. Average Americans pay their taxes through withholding or quarterly estimates. Meanwhile, corporations and multinational enterprises take advantage of elaborate tax shelters, and billions go uncollected. The need for reform is obvious and compelling, and I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration. But unlike the tax initiatives of the current president, my program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet--not those whose needs are well provided for.


Finally, maintaining fiscal discipline is essential to long-term growth; discretionary spending must be sustainable, and the federal budget must be balanced over the business cycle.

I balanced every budget during my 11 years as governor, despite the fact that Vermont is the only state with a constitution that doesn't require a balanced budget. To keep spending in line, I will not be afraid to use the veto--a power President Bush has yet to exercise.

Some of these measures will be unpopular, and many will be opposed by the special interests. But the next president must take swift and decisive action to restore the economic well being of our nation's families. They need meaningful jobs at good wages. They need the security of health insurance--no matter how old or young they may be, and without regard to their economic status. They have the right to educate their children to the limits of their abilities, not the limit of their pocketbooks, and to look forward to a secure retirement. In short, they expect a better deal, and deserve no less.

Dr. Dean, former governor of Vermont, is seeking the Democratic Party nomination for the 2004 presidential elections.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003920

" begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts."

totally? or just in part?

…
I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation's infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it.
…
I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration. But unlike the tax initiatives of the current president, my program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet--not those whose needs are well provided for.
…

middle class who need help.

what income range would have to pay back their tax refund?

Just 3 weeks later:

"TT: You’d reverse Bush’s tax cut, I gather…

Dean: Not all of it, almost all of it…"

http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/1049/coverstory.htm

He has said repeatedly he's going to repeal all the Bush tax cuts, is he or isn't he?

although I can't verify this, is that he would keep the marriage tax cut and the child tax credit, but that's it he said. Everything else would go.

war or no war. medicare cuts or no cuts. Land preservation or land use. This guy doesn't have a consistent policy on anything.

And if he's going to keep the marriage tax cuts and child tax cuts, why is he harping on Kerry that there were no middle class tax cuts to begin with?

war or no war
…
LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Judy.

(LAUGHTER)

Not always easy with this crowd. Thank you very much.

This is a very important discussion, because each of the nine of us want to be the commander in chief of the United States military and protect the security of this country. That requires a clarity of judgment and the courage to stick by the judgment you've made.

Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun -- they were clear and consistent against the war. I was for it clearly and consistently, but I respect them for that clarity.

I must say that I've been very disappointed since Wes Clark came into this race about the various positions he has taken on the war against Saddam Hussein.

Howard Dean is right, last fall, a few days before the voting in Congress, he said he would have recommended it and would have supported the resolution. After the war, he wrote a piece in the Times of London praising President Bush and Tony Blair for their resolve. When he became a candidate he said he probably would have voted for the resolution.

There was an uproar. Then he said: I never would have voted for the resolution.

The American people have lost confidence in George Bush because he hasn't leveled with them. We need a candidate who will meet the test of reaching a conclusion and having the courage to stick with it. And I intend to be that candidate and that kind of president.
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5841-2003Oct9.html

repeal or not repeal
…
We can do better. As president, my economic policies will be focused and clear. I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation's infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it.

The task of meeting the needs of American families begins with health care. My plan will not only insure millions of Americans who are without adequate care today, it will reduce costs for small business, states and communities--freeing up funds that can be used to grow businesses and meet other national and local priorities.

An important part of my program for a full-employment recovery will be extending a helping hand to states and communities. My policies as governor kept Vermont strong fiscally; but all over America, the financial resources of other states and cities are strained to the limit. Teachers are being laid off, highways lack repairs, firehouses are closed. Instead of tax cuts that have not created jobs, we need to make investments in America. I will increase federal aid for special education, and provide more temporary help to the states--for homeland security and school construction and infrastructure modernization. And I will increase the availability of capital for small businesses, so that they can invest in new technology and create more jobs.

No program for economic recovery and growth can ignore the tax system, particularly the bizarre collection of tax expenditures, preferences, credits and deductions which has directed revenues away from the federal treasury and into uneconomic tax avoidance schemes. Average Americans pay their taxes through withholding or quarterly estimates. Meanwhile, corporations and multinational enterprises take advantage of elaborate tax shelters, and billions go uncollected. The need for reform is obvious and compelling, and I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration. But unlike the tax initiatives of the current president, my program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet--not those whose needs are well provided for.
…

medicare cuts or no cuts
Gephardt's Attacks: Out of Context and Out of Line
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=community_labor_response

Land preservation or land use
…
One of these times occurs toward the end of April, in the brown-tweed-and-blond-wood conference room of an affluent Westside law firm that is hosting Dean at a sandwich lunch for the benefit of the California League of Conservation Voters. About 50 people are sitting around a horseshoe formation of long tables, and Dean stands in the central opening, shirtsleeves rolled up and arms crossed, a halogen spotlight making his forehead shiny, while he holds forth, answering questions cogently and effortlessly for close to an hour. He discusses emissions standards and ethanol and wind farms, and he offers up something that’s absolute catnip to anyone with an interest in how politics are actually done — the forthright, ligament-by-ligament anatomy of a deal, this one involving the recent preservation of Vermont’s Champion lands, an area of 133,000 acres; a “huge” piece, he says proudly, the largest land deal east of the Mississippi.

He and his team used the NRA, he says, to neutralize the most ardent property-rights Republicans in the legislature. They then went to the snowmobilers and explained that although there would be a wilderness area off-limits to them, there would be other areas they could utilize. They used that concession, he goes on, to get the snowmobilers’ help in supporting the exclusion of ATVs: “You can’t compromise with ATVers under any circumstances, they just do too much damage to the land . . .” In other words, Dean says, you assemble the broadest coalition possible and then parcel out something for everybody. “Now, it can’t be everybody, because there’s always those on the extreme edge of the right who want to clear-cut everything, that’s their idea of sustainable timbering . . .” But in general, he says, you work with all the stakeholders, and then if one element of the coalition starts to defect, if the snowmobilers, say, try to link up with the ATVers, which they sometimes threaten to do, “you put the leverage on. You say, ‘If it’s a choice between letting the ATVs in or keeping the snowmobile people out — sorry, we’ll see you later.’ And that brings the snowmobilers back to the table . . .”

Then, somewhere in the middle of this entirely pragmatic discussion, Dean pauses, and he puts his finger on a kind of abstract longing involving a belief that there exist two strands in American politics, the one preoccupied with self-interest and the other a genuine concern for fellow citizens, and a desire for these strands to combine. He says slowly and thoughtfully, “The biggest damage we’ve suffered in the last two years hasn’t been economic, and it hasn’t even been our loss of respect in the eyes of the world. The biggest loss we’ve sustained in this country has been our loss of community . . . It’s not enough for me just to have good schools for my kid, or good health care for my kid. It’s really important for us to provide these things for everybody. That’s been the premise of America. That’s what we have to get back again.”
…
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/41/features-wolf.php

Sure, Lieberman and others want to paint Dean as the anti-war candidate because they don't think that's going to carry the nomination in the end. I really don't care what they say, I've read his words and they're all over the place.

I just responded on the repeal or not repeal, he's all over the place on that too.

As he is on Medicare. He says he didn't support the Gringrich plan, which I'll let slide, that he supported the Domenici plan. The Domenici plan shut down the government, so I don't see how he considers that an improvement over supporting Gingrich.

On land use, the times he supposedly set aside land in Vermont, he didn't really set it aside in terms environmentalists usually think of. It's still open to logging and snowmobiling, so it's not really being protected.

The guy is wishy-washy and doesn't represent much of anything that resembles traditional Democratic values.

your opinions.

And I didn't get any answers.

It gives a break to people who not only don't need it, but are, in fact, deriving huge benefits from being married, both in terms of finances and in terms of preferred treatment by the gov't and the law (like, the tax free transfer of all assets on death of one spouse).

Also, I understant that it helps everyone, regardless of need. They should be giving poor single mothers and fathers tax cuts before they give them to super rich people.

The only financial benefit you mention, isn't enjoyed until one spouse dies...cold comfort. What are the other benefits and preferred government treatment that you believe should be paid for by married people with higher taxes?

Also, don't forget the political angle. In the general election, if the Democratic candidate is campaigning on a platform of "let's re-institute the marraige penalty", I don't think it is going to go over so well. And like it or not, 'marraige penalty' is firmly ensconced in the public mind as the description for this policy.

Right to SS survivors benefits and right to Medicare based on spouse's work history. Unmarried couples can't get this at all.

Right to tax free medical coverage for your spouse if your employer provides it. Unmarried couples have to pay taxes on that if they can get it at all.

Right to sue for economic losses in case of death or injury of your spouse. In most states unmarried couples can't do that.

Right to private pensions your spouse has earned. Unmarrieds can't do that in many cases.

I could go on and on for pages if you really wish me to but you have a lot of benefits as a married person that you take for granted.

for an unmarried couple to get married, and really, most of that goes to the heart of what a marriage is - a legal union between two people. If there were no legal differences between being married an unmarried, why even have legally sanctioned marriage? Then it really would be nothing but 'a slip of paper' as the saying goes.

That said, I do see your point, I just don't find it as compelling as the simple argument that you should not be in a higher tax bracket simply because you are married.

The child tax credit is a great idea. I don't have children and I don't mind at all helping to make raising children a tiny bit easier any more than I resent paying property taxes to support my local schools. 'It takes a village' as somebody has repeated...

actually benefit from being married on their tax forms. BTW I can't just go out and get married which is one reason that I get sick to death of hearing married people whine endlessly (not saying you in particular) about the marriage 'penalty'.

-- mind you, I'm not saying it's not true -- just that if true it seems to be one of those secrets the media is keeping (we know how good they are at that.)

So, just to educate me, where are you getting that statistic?

I heard them talking about in on NPR as part of their Defense of Marriage celebration.

I've never seen a study which said there wasn't a huge benefit from being married.

I even saw a study that said married people have lower body weight than singles. They live longer. I don't there's a single economic or quality of life measure which shows single people are, on average, better off than married people.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=%22marriage+penalty%22

I don't deny that there is a huge benefit from being married. But based on what I've read off the google search above, I'm not convinced that the marriage penalty was as ephemeral or unburdensome as you paint it. Well the tax code is complicated and considering how difficult it is here to settle even simple questions (like: Does Dean want to repeal the whole Bush tax cut? lol), I doubt we will be able to settle the question here. And (quelle surprise) I still don't agree that we should re-institute it.

But there is no denying that repealing the marriage penalty was politically very popular. It certainly seems like a winning issue for Bush if we were to go the route of bringing it back. We are in the age of the sound bite, like it or not. Can we really convince the populace that we should 'bring back the marriage penalty'? Or can we really frame the debate some other way? I doubt it.

or people who want them? Or something like that.

that is exactly where I got it. It should be noted that there are only some cases where the 'penalty' kicks in. You have to go from one bracket to a higher one. Since the child deduction is so large many of the 'penalized' couples get to write off that extra income. Thus there ends up being no penalty.

If married peopel get tons of benefits from being married, and then you throw a big fat tax break on top of that, who's picking up the weight you just took off the married couples? That weight is being put on single people, including single parents. You can't put that much weight on people already bearing a lot of the burdens and then not expect society to start crumbling. (This, incidentally, is about 70% of John Edwards's meta-message.)

I think it's important for people to see this stuff.

I do get tired of hearing all of this married people get no benefits stuff. I think that alot of them just aren't thought of as benefits they are getting but things they are entitled to.

I think, to getting the middle class to start realizing their interests lie in liberalism rather than conservativism.

The media, and American culture does so much to make people think they're entitled to a lot of crazy shit. And a lot of people swalllow that line.

Racism and hostility to civil rights in the middle class is almost entirely rooted in the notion that, if you're white, you're entitled to go to the university of michigan and that if someone who isn't white gets a few points on the application because of race, they're taking away something which was yours.

(but not all) but you still need to higher a lawyer to write up the contracts (and, perhaps, terminate them).

There are so many social beneftis, they're too obvious to mention. One is that married people can buy a nicer house with pooled money. Everyone knows that, in a decent economy, the more you spend on your house, the more money you make when you sell it. (And, imagine all the hassles of buying a house with someone to whom you aren't married -- the government makes this process much less risky, and gives you a ton of protections and benefits unmarried people don't have).

The Democrats shouldn't be arguing whether they want to keep or toss the marriage breaks, they should be talking about lifting the burden of taxes off of people who are burdened first, and ask the people who aren't burdened to please help pull the weight.

Supporting marriage breaks is a betrayal of that principle.

we agree on this. It should also be noted that over half of married couples save money by being married (mostly those with children).

Mine are breaking our bank. I might agree that being married gives you smaller expenses(1 rent, 1 gas bill, etc.), but having children is massively expensive. Between school, clothes, food, etc, you go broke.

over ending the marriage penalty (that is what I was agreeing with). The other part of my post was to point out that most married people actually are not penalized by our tax code (most of the ones who aren't are couples with kids).

?

The marriage tax credit, however, is bullshit.

If a married couple gets a tax break it should be because they're sturggling, and not because they're married. For every married couple getting a break which they didn't need, there are struggling couples and singles who aren't getting all the services and tax breaks which they should be getting to help them outl.

Implies at some level there are going to less taxes. That isn't a full repeal, but a redistribution of some and a repeal of the others.

Lower taxes to the poor and middle class should fuel demand. Recinding tax cuts to the extreme rich will curb the deficit.

He said there were no middle class tax cuts and Kerry and others were being Bush-lites for suggesting we keep tax cuts that didn't exist in the first place. Now we've got people saying he's going to keep the tax cuts, the one's he just said last week didn't exist. And nobody finds this bizarre?

This is the nuttiest candidate we've ever had. I cannot believe people are buying into this bullshit.

…
We can do better. As president, my economic policies will be focused and clear. I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation's infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it.

The task of meeting the needs of American families begins with health care. My plan will not only insure millions of Americans who are without adequate care today, it will reduce costs for small business, states and communities--freeing up funds that can be used to grow businesses and meet other national and local priorities.

An important part of my program for a full-employment recovery will be extending a helping hand to states and communities. My policies as governor kept Vermont strong fiscally; but all over America, the financial resources of other states and cities are strained to the limit. Teachers are being laid off, highways lack repairs, firehouses are closed. Instead of tax cuts that have not created jobs, we need to make investments in America. I will increase federal aid for special education, and provide more temporary help to the states--for homeland security and school construction and infrastructure modernization. And I will increase the availability of capital for small businesses, so that they can invest in new technology and create more jobs.

No program for economic recovery and growth can ignore the tax system, particularly the bizarre collection of tax expenditures, preferences, credits and deductions which has directed revenues away from the federal treasury and into uneconomic tax avoidance schemes. Average Americans pay their taxes through withholding or quarterly estimates. Meanwhile, corporations and multinational enterprises take advantage of elaborate tax shelters, and billions go uncollected. The need for reform is obvious and compelling, and I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration. But unlike the tax initiatives of the current president, my program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet--not those whose needs are well provided for.
…

Why has he sometime said repeal all the tax cuts and other times said some of the tax cuts? What's he really going to do? What does this tax reform consist of? Why won't he actually say?

...correct his mistake about being against progressivity in the tax code.

Oh, and he still wants balanced budgets at all costs, even if means balancing it on the backs of the middle class while the middle class is trying to work us out of the hole we're in.

But, perhaps, he'll change on this issue too. (Meanwhile, I'll stick with the candidate who has been on the good side of this issue from the beginning.)

It is clear why you thought it was a current interview but equally clear upon reading it that it isn't.

The Bush tax "cuts" were simply tax redistributions. The federal government cuts taxes, passes less money to the states, and calls it a tax cut. Schools still need to pay teachers and roads still need to be fixed, so the state and local governments are forced to raise taxes.

The overall result is:

The poor are worse off (they didn't get the Bush tax cuts and are forced to pay more state and local taxes...they also have to deal with issues like decreasing quality of education and city services)

The middle class are worse off (most of them got a pittance from the Bush tax cuts and they now pay higher income, sales, and property taxes...they also suffer from the decline in quality of city services)

The rich do very well (they got the lion's share of the tax cuts and although they do see a rise in property, income, and sales taxes they also have a much higher disposable income to absorb the losses. They are also less effected by city service cuts)

Dean will repael the Bush tax cuts entirely. In return, he will provide universal healthcare and increase funding for education and infrastructure.

The result:

The poor do better

The middle class do better (although they may experience a few years of higher overall taxes while the local and state taxation levels readjust to the new influx of money from the federal government)

The wealthy pay their fair share

And the problem with this is????

Post #4

"TT: You’d reverse Bush’s tax cut, I gather…

Dean: Not all of it, almost all of it…"

What is he really going to do? Why won't he be consistent? Why does he say 2001 and 2003 when there were tax cuts in 2002 as well? Why do some people think he's going to repeal all the tax cuts and others don't? Why is there the same confusion as when some people said he was a 'wink, wink' liberal, while others said he was 'hard to pin down', and others said he was clearly a centrist?

of middle class?

He said in Philadelphia fund raiser (a private one, which a DUer wrote about) that he would target tax relief on the poor and that he couldn't leave the middle class tax breaks in place because he'd be accused of giving handouts to the upper middle class.

Dean wants balanced budgets at all costs. I don't think he accepts the idea that the middle class need a little relief so that they can accumulate more money and economic power and so that they're less fatigued in their efforts to work the US out of the economic hole we're in.

This is part of that whole Cato Institute mentality he has. He doesn't like the fact that Democrats use tax policy to help the economy. He only wants to use tax policy to balance the budget, and then he thinks he can lower taxes over time.

fiscal responsible but how is Dean going to sell a tax increase when running against Bush?

burden fairly. It'll go up for a few and done for many, and it will create an economy that creates way more wealth for everyone if we get a progressive tax code.

I'd be more than happy to pay higher taxes on higher income if paying higher taxes meant that the economy could deliver to me more wealth.

big tax cuts?

I'm probably considered middle-to-upper-middle class (35 years old, divorced, one son, own a house, 401k but not many other investments, $130k per year income). I barely noticed the "tax cut" and I'm one of the groups that supposedly did so well.

What I DID notice is that Ohio raised the state sales tax 1% and began taxing things like haircuts and tanning. I live in an incredibly fiscally stable community, but I DID notice that a lot of the surrounding cities are begging for levies and raising their local income tax rates.

I really don't feel that repealing the Bush tax cuts will be "balancing the budget on back". I DO feel that taking that money and providing universal health care and increased federal funding of education and infrastructure will make my life (and a LOT of other people's lives) better.

I hear what you're saying, but I still feel we'll all do better with Dean's plan (well, except the very wealthy, I suppose...).

when there was less income disparity (ie, the 2000, 2001 or 2002 code) is NOT helpful to the middle class at all, and that's what Dean is talking about.

Dean is so focused on balancing the budget (which was a preoccupation of Herbert Hoover's) that he's losing sight of the fact that middle class is bearing a huge tax burden.

The issue here is about allocating the tax burden fairly to allow the middle class to pull this economy out of the doldrums.

I believe Dean is trying to appeal to the Cato Institute on this issue. Cato doesn't like using tax policy to achieve social/economic outcomes, so Dean is loathe to talk about progressive income tax the way Edwards, Kerry, and now Lieberman talk about it.

The fact is, the tax code is so regressive that making it more progressive will probably give the economy a bigger kick than balancing the budget.

First of all Dean is not calling for a return to 2002's tax code Bush cut taxes in 2001 . Dean is clearly not advocating keeping that tax cut.

Second, the CATO institute supported every last one of Bush's cuts and it is nothing short of utterly dishonest to pretend they and Dean have the same tax policy.

Third, balancing the budget directly saved the typical middle class family thousands a year in mortgage interest per year alone.

The wealthiest 400 Americans got 10% wealthier in the last year alone. I don’t know the precise stats for any of the quintiles outside the top 400, but I suspect that they are holding steady or getting poorer. Therefore, going back to any code that we had in the past is even more regressive than the code was when we had it.

The point I’m making about CATO is that Dean said to them that they should like him. Dean has also said that he thinks Democrats rely too much on the tax code to achieve policy goals. I’m just putting together the pieces of the puzzle.

Why give homeowners half a loaf (balanced budget) rather than a whole loaf (a great economy)? Furthermore, Hoover only cared about balanced budgets (and taxed the hell out of the working and middle class to balance them) and how great was that for mortgage holders?

It is easy to have low rates and a shitty economy. Clinton's magic was to have a great economy and low rates. We can't run huge deficits and expect great economy and low rates. If you don't believe me read Krugman's book. He lays out that case very well.

People don't get it, but there's a huge difference.

In The Clinton Wars, Sid Blumenthal describes the debates over what to do with the surplus. The FIRST idea they dismissed was giving it back as a tax cut. That's the first and only think Dean would do.

that is equivalent to running surplusses. If you have him saying otherwise I want a link. Now it should be stated that no sane person is going to promise a surplus in the first term. We are too far in out of balance for that. Dean promises to repay debt, ie run surplusses in a second term.

Institute"? I'd bet that 95% of the American public (and at least 70% of Dean's supporters) couldn't tell you the first thing about the CATO Institute. I doubt he's making a point of trying to garner appeal there.

The fact is that the middle class did just fine under Clinton. That's exactly what Dean proposes we return to. Yes, the upper-middle-class (of which I think I may be a member) might see some short-term tax increases (until state and local tax structures adjust to the new influx of federal money). These increases will be outweighed in the short term by the effects of universal health care. They will be greatly outweighed in the long term by increased federal funding of education and infrastructure.

Repealing the pittance given to the "middle class" will matter little. The gains will far outweigh the sacrifices, especially in the long term.

it is simply outdated. to compare today to clinton's economy is ridiculous; just saying "clinton" does not create wealth and industry. we are living in very different times... dubya has destroyed us. does dean have any insight on how to fix this problem that we face today-- and will face for some time-- with his own solution or is he simply referring to clinton to tap into certain voters?

SEVERAL YEARS AGO an obscure Democratic governor from the politically inconsequential state of Vermont was the guest speaker at a Cato Institute lunch. His name was Howard Dean. He had been awarded one of the highest grades among all Democrats (and a better grade than at least half of the Republicans) in the annual Cato Fiscal Report Card on the Governors.
...
"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

He left--and I will never forget the nearly hypnotic reaction. The charismatic doctor had made believers of several hardened cynics. Nearly everyone agreed that we had finally found a Democrat we could work with. Since then, I've watched Dean's career with more than a little interest and we chat from time to time on the phone.
...

Even as he pursued wild-eyed social experiments, Dean carefully nurtured a reputation as a "business-friendly" governor. On numerous occasions he pragmatically swept aside onerous environmental regulations and last-use restrictions (this is the greenest state of all) to make room for business expansion and jobs, jobs, jobs. He supported electricity deregulation to take monopolistic pricing power away from big utilities. He even launched one of the nation's most progressive voucher programs for high school students.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp

Here's something else...
http://www.socialsecurity.org/dailys/07-02-03.html

And even Dean suggests you check out Cato's website on his own website
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=stopashcroft&JServSessionIdr002=x9og6g23h1.app193a

Libertarians for Howard Dean

I love Libertarians, and I think Libertarians would love Howard Dean. Here's why:
He has essentially the same policy towards Iraq as the Cato Institute. No other Democratic candidate comes close to this position, and Bush is the polar opposite. (all Cato Institute Iraq articles)

He believes in equal rights for gays and lesbians via civil unions.

He has libertarian compatible attitude toward gun control (rural areas don't need or want it, and that's ok)

He's rabidly pro-choice

He's not officially a Libertarian, but he's the only candidate with a shot who is close. Ask yourself what your candidate's position on the Texas sodomy laws is (Bush likes em, Dean doesn't) or how about Total Information Awareness. Do you think Ashcroft is representing your interests in the Justice Department? Do you pine for the days when we cared about balancing the budget? Dean's your man. The more you read about him, the more you'll like him. Check out his site. And if you're from Montana, I can assure you that Dean has never dyed his skin blue (unlike some candidates).

3/31/2003 03:14:52 PM

http://noho-missives.blogspot.com/2003_03_30_noho-missives_archive.html

I hear politicians talk about the middle class all the time, but what income range are they talking about? Is this some magical income range defined by the IRS, or does every pol have their own definition?

or parts of the second, all of the third, and parts of the fourth quintile.

0 - 25,000
25,000 - 50,000
50,000 - 75,000
75,000 - 100,000
100,000 - and so on...

This is always my problem as I cannot get anyone to define these numbers.

From the National Taxpayers Union, we have data on who pays what taxes:

http://www.ntu.org/links/FAQs/whopaysincometaxes.php3

But this does not detail what the middle class is.

Have any of the candidates defined what they mean by middle class? I have sent emails to all the candidates web sites asking this question, and I get responses, but without the dollar range.

The top 1% wealthiest households in America own at least 38.1% of all the wealth in America. The Great Depression happened when 44.2% of all the wealth in America was owned by the top 1%.

The bottom 90% of American households own less than 30% of America's wealth.
The bottom 40% of American households own 0.2% of America's wealth.


http://www.ufenet.org/research/wealth_charts.html

Big buisnesses (owned by those in the top 1%) are running small buisnesses out of buisness. Big buisnesses are now leaving the country and taking their wealth with them. Run a small buisness and you have to pay high taxes. Run a big one and you can incorporate in the Cayman Islands, thereby avoiding federal taxes, and shop around in all 50 states for the one that will pay the board members the most to move there.

cagey about laying out all the facts so that truth about how we collect taxes in America becomes apparent.

In any event, it's hard to identify the middle class because what you're trying to do is isolate a section of a curve and say all these people are in the same economic position.

One of the the things, in my mind, is that people who make money from earned income (ie salary, taxed at rates higher than dividend and cap gains income) are generally in the same boat, although they might not realize it.

A 55 year old union worker making 58K, a two-lawyer couple of 35 year olds making 300K, and a college grad in her first job making 42K, are in a very similar positions if their income is all being taxed in a way that puts them at a competitive disadvantage to people who make their income from selling stock options, or from dividend or trust income.

Of all the candidates I sent this question to, Dean's is the only one that did not respond to me at all. Although all the other candidates responded with hollow platitudes about helping the middle class, but not defining who that is. I supose that by not giving specifics the candidate once in office can do anything they want and cannot be held accountable. Also by not defining the middle class the candidate can appear to be helping many people when they actually have no intention of doing so.

If Democrats want to defeat Bush, one thing that would go a long way towards the vistory would be to be honest and open, and define exactly what they stand for in non-ambiguous terms.

Which is what Hoover was trying to do when he balanced budgets at all costs on the backs of thte middle class.

I am virtually certain I saw this posted some time ago. I have no idea why it appears with this weeks date but I am all but dead certain it is an old interview. He isn't touring Texas now and it mentions him doing so on the cover dated this week to site one example of why I think this.

Here is my proof it is.

Now, the 53-year-old physician-turned-politician is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, the first candidate out of the gate for the 2004 election. “If he could raise money, he’d be dangerous,” said James Carville in a recent article. And that will be the key going into the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, which present a do or die challenge to long shots.

Married with two teenagers, a graduate of Yale and the Albert Einstein School of Medicine in New York, Dean is the longest serving governor in the country (since 1991). It would be facile to call him a combination of Clinton and McCain. But he has the former’s political imagination and easy grasp of complex policy. He has the reputation for the latter’s “straight talk” and, like McCain, he defies labels. The Texas Triangle talked to Dean on the eve of a campaign trip through Texas.


end of quote

The above literally make not one whit of sence in any date past June of this year. His campaign stop in Texes that is alluded to here was quite some time ago (before June of 03) and he clearly had shown an ability to raise money in June. I recall the Texas trip as being at least as far back as April but may be thinking of May. In any case it was before the increased deficit figures and the cost of the war.
Note also that the Bush cuts later are not defined as being both 2001 and 2003.

I knew it was old I didn't realize how old. This must have been around his first Texas trip. I had assumed it was around his second one.

I've read the material you posted, so it is not neccesary to post it a third time. What is YOUR understanding of Dean's position?

Repeal ALL the tax cut, or PART of it?

I mean you could bring up the war, or the environment, or campaign finance reformor NAFTA or Medicare or Israel or Antarctica or whatever but I don't understand how that is going to inform anyone about Dean's position on the tax cut.

…
We can do better. As president, my economic policies will be focused and clear. I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation's infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it.

Translation:
Repeal the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
Reform the tax code to "put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it." (I think it's obvious who he is talking about with the term: "those most likely to spend it" -- folks with a yearly income of less than ~$350K/year, the middle, lower and to a lesser extent the lower upper classes.

The task of meeting the needs of American families begins with health care. My plan will not only insure millions of Americans who are without adequate care today, it will reduce costs for small business, states and communities--freeing up funds that can be used to grow businesses and meet other national and local priorities.

Translation:
Use the money saved on health insurance for "millions of Americans who are without adequate care today", which also "reduce{s} costs for small business, states and communities--freeing up funds that can be used to grow businesses and meet other national and local priorities."

An important part of my program for a full-employment recovery will be extending a helping hand to states and communities. My policies as governor kept Vermont strong fiscally; but all over America, the financial resources of other states and cities are strained to the limit. Teachers are being laid off, highways lack repairs, firehouses are closed. Instead of tax cuts that have not created jobs, we need to make investments in America. I will increase federal aid for special education, and provide more temporary help to the states--for homeland security and school construction and infrastructure modernization. And I will increase the availability of capital for small businesses, so that they can invest in new technology and create more jobs.

Translation:
Use more of the money saved on funding "federal aid for special education", providing "more temporary help to the states--for homeland security and school construction and infrastructure modernization." and increasing "the availability of capital for small businesses".

No program for economic recovery and growth can ignore the tax system, particularly the bizarre collection of tax expenditures, preferences, credits and deductions which has directed revenues away from the federal treasury and into uneconomic tax avoidance schemes. Average Americans pay their taxes through withholding or quarterly estimates. Meanwhile, corporations and multinational enterprises take advantage of elaborate tax shelters, and billions go uncollected. The need for reform is obvious and compelling, and I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration. But unlike the tax initiatives of the current president, my program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet--not those whose needs are well provided for.
…

Translation:
Give "top priority" to reforming the tax system to remove as much as possible "the bizarre collection of tax expenditures, preferences, credits and deductions which has directed revenues away from the federal treasury and into uneconomic tax avoidance schemes."

Give "top priority" to pushing a "program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet--not those whose needs are well provided for."

"..program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet..."

Is that what you're saying?

And exactly what is this 'tax reform' going to consist of? I don't see anything specific about that.

Like my questions on who the middle class is:


1. Who are the "average" Americans?


2. Who are "working families"?


What I assume is if the canidate will not define the terms, I interpet these people to be anybody but me...

Maybe I'm stupid :dunce: but I can't figure out where you've answered that question.

And, please, please, please do not post that article a fourth time. I've read it and I understand it fully. No 'translation' is neccesary.

Just tell us whether you understand Dean's position to be repealing ALL or PART of the Bush tax cut. I really had no idea when I asked this question that getting the answer was going to be so much like pulling teeth.

ALL or PART?

I guess the other possibility is that Dean hasn't taken a firm stance on this issue. Is that what you are saying?

I'm sure that Dean wouldn't complain if he got that done in one bill, but I expect it will take a series of bills over multiple years.

Are you just trying to annoy me? :freak:

Or are you actually trying to duck the question?

…
TT: You’d reverse Bush’s tax cut, I gather…

Dean: Not all of it, almost all of it…
…
http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/1049/coverstory.htm

No, I'm not trying to duck any questions. I'm trying to be as precise as possible.

he just doesn't connect :crazy:

see how ridiculous that sounds.

of any presidential candidate. And pulling in the most money from the largest number of donors of any Democratic presidential candidate. :crazy:

Dean Scene
IT WAS THE LARGEST political assembly ever convened in of the City of Falls Church. Over 4,000 citizens from throughout the greater Washington, D.C., area descended in the City's historic Cherry Hill Park last Saturday to listen and show support for Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean. Dean is shown here greeting the throng shortly after moving onto the stage for the first stop in a whirlwind "Sleepless Summer Tour" that put him in front of similar mass rallies in eight U.S. cities in four days. More photos of the historic event are on Page 13 and a comment on his candidacy appears in the "White House Report" on Page 5. (News-Press photo)
http://www.fcnp.com/325/story4.htm

As far as I can tell, I may fully agree with your point.

Whatever. :eyes:

If Howard Dean becomes President, and then makes a tax proposal, he will either propose to keep Bush's tax cut, repeal all of it, our repeal part of it.

Of course it's not just that simple, but the simple answer comes first, then the explanation. You are trying to explain an answer you haven't given.

…
TT: You’d reverse Bush’s tax cut, I gather…

Dean: Not all of it, almost all of it…
…
http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/1049/coverstory.htm

OnEdit: This interview is from 2002. Dean currently supports repealing *all* of Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax bills and pushing for the tax reforms detalied in the WSJ editorial explained in post 26.

"Q: Are you calling for the repeal of all the Bush tax cuts or just those passed this year?
A: All the cuts, though there are some tax cuts that we would look at as an economic-stimulus package."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/b3845085.htm

For starters, there were cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003; is he repealing all of them, or just 2001 and 2003?

Second, why has he based his entire platform on repealing all the tax cuts when he has made several statements that conflict with that at the same time? The article you posted yourself has him talking about tax reform and putting money into the hands of people who will spend it. That's a tax cut for working and middle income. If that's his plan, why won't he be specific about it?

Third, if he needed the entire tax cut to fund his programs all year long, why doesn't he need them anymore? He has always said he is against the tax cuts because he needed the money to pay for health care, his other programs and balancing the budget. What changed? And how is he going to explain this sudden change after bashing the majority of the other candidates all year? And more importantly, how is he going to explain it to skeptical Americans if he wins the nomination?

And I could swear you, personally, have argued intensely over these tax cuts and health care in the past. How do you justify having to alter your position on Dean's main issue?

why any candidate's statements NEED to be translated. IMO, that is exactly where we get into trouble - over and over again.

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

Start over

Don't you care? What does that mean? Why won't Howard Dean be specific about what tax cuts he'll 'put back in' after he 'repeals all the tax cuts'? And if he wants to 'put some back in', then why does he say there are no tax cuts that are doing anybody any good?

and fully funding special ed, etc... and we can afford tax cuts for the poor and middle class, then he'll do it. It will probably depend on our economy when Dean takes over, and will have to get through congress, so I'm not sure what the point of being so specific is at this time.

Fuck that. I am not going to vote for a candidate who won't tell me whether tax cuts or a balanced budget or health care or investment in infrastructure is the priority. It matters.

1.) Health Care
2.) Fully fund unfunded mandates
3.) Infrastructure
4.) Balance the Budget
5.) Tax cuts

How do you know those are his priorities?

…
I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration. But unlike the tax initiatives of the current president, my program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet--not those whose needs are well provided for.
…

You keep saying tax reform, but you never provide anything specific about what that would entail. And the other poster said health care was the top priority. If Dean's tax reforms don't allow for enough money for all of his health care proposals, what's more important? And he also says he wants a balanced budget. What comes first? Health care or a balanced budget?

He wants some kind of 'tax reform' to put money into the hands of people who will spend it. We don't know exactly what that means because he won't tell us. But probably keeping tax cuts for working and middle income people.

Even while he calls Congress Bush-lites for supporting the same tax cuts.

Will he still do this if it costs more than his health care plan? Or if he can't balance the budget?

I swear, I do not know why you people support this guy. He doesn't say anything. It's a great idea to take our country back, but he's the kind of asshole, right wing pretending to be left wing, that I want to take my country away from.

and lose because he is going to raise taxes. How is he getting elected when he wants to raise taxes? I don't want Bush in the white house for another 4 years... Dean's nominations is helping Bush! This sucks!

Dean is raising taxes on the middle class. God help us all because Rove is praying for a Dean nomination...

This is the only part the Democrats wanted (but Kerry and Edwards voted against the whole package both times).

This is one of the big differences in the candidates: who is raising taxes on the middle class. This issue could kill us in the general.
KEEP CUTS:
Kerry and Edwards say the middle class tax cuts are needed, that they mean something like $2000 for a family of four.
RAISE TAXES:
Dean and Gephardt say get rid of all the tax cuts including middle class tax cuts. Gephardt says he need to do it to pay for his health care plan. (But Kucinich has only true universal and funds from employers not from middle class tax cuts.) Dean says he needs it to pay for everything else. (But Edwards pays for everything he does plus a lot of debt reduction without raising middle class taxes.)

Kerry supports leaving the tiny fraction of the cuts for those under $200,000 as a form of stimulus and personal budget balancing (credit card bills, etc.).

The HUGE cuts for those above $200,000 (the comfortably off) would be repealed to balance the rising costs of necessary services (school, health care, etc.).

Kerry is content to cut only half of the budget deficit in 4 years. He doesn't feel the benefit of going further than that will outweigh the burdens.

Or they don't want to give it.


"What is Dean's position on the Bush tax cut?


Does he want to keep it, or repeal it, or just repeal part of it?"

even be aksing this quesiton.

The only reason we're talking about this is because Dean's bigger message about taxes isn't as obvious and well (and often) state as some of the other candidates'.

Because he is doing well in the polls. That's sad though.

...about this issue.

There not voting for him because he's an fiscal liberal with a message that's going to fix the economy first and promote economic and social justice as a result.

They're voting for him because he seems as angry at Bush as they are over the war, and because they perceive him as a social liberal.

To clarify his fiscal policies would reveal that he's probably a little closer to being a liberterian than most of his supporters would be if they understood the issues.

Dean's position, you'd see that his position isn't the one you make it out to be.

Read post number 26 and please tell me what you percive is wrong with what he says. IMHO, his policy is fantastic.

and said that someone in the room asked Dean why he wouldn't leave the middle class tax breaks in place. His answer was that he couldn't because he would be accused of helping the upper middle class. He said that the tax code should give assistance to the people who need it – the poor.

I don't agree with him. I like the EIC. I think that it’s good. But I really think that the regressivity of the tax code is a huge problem that gets worse every year. I think the tax code is taking BETTER care of the poor than it does of the middle and working class. In fact, if you want the people who are working to make American better to be able to work better, have to give those people help. Also, where the hell are the Republicans getting their money? From the people who are working and creating wealthy. So protect them from those people. Ask the wealthy to start pulling their own weight, and take some of the burden off the people who are subsidizing them.

Dean doesn't talk about tax like that – i.e., as bluntly as some of the other candidates (and one in particular).

Furthermore, the only time Dean ever criticizes anything in relation to corporations and taxes, he always qualifies it with a comment about tax cuts for companies exporting jobs. That narrows the focus on corporate tax so much that it's practically useless in terms of addressing the problems. Even if the tax code penalized companies for exporting jobs, we’d still have 1000 other problems in the corporate tax code giving them ridiculous benefits.

Now, when I put the pieces of Deans message together. I see a guy who, if elected, is going to measure his success in terms of not running deficits and in increasing jobs. However, unless he focuses on progressive taxes, and getting the middle class some decent opportunities, rather than making it easier (in a tax sense) to be desperately poor, those jobs he's going to bring to the US will be jobs for 12 year olds (or adults on the EIC) sewing soccer balls for Europeans. Get the picture? Not running deficits and having a huge underclass perpetually at EIC-qualifying income levels isn't the kind of America I'm looking forward to living in. I'd like to see some of the potential in America untapped by distributing the tax burden fairly and taking the burden of the engine of economic growth – the middle class.

I think that Dean means it when he says he thinks that Democrats are too focused on tax policy. I think Dean doesn't want to use tax policy to create growth because he wants to get rid of taxes as much as he can. I think sound tax policy -- taking a little bit a money everywhere it circulates in a way that's progressive and doesn't discourage socially valuable behavior -- is a key to a functioning, fair, progressive, innovation-encouraging economy. If Dean makes it look like a tool that works, he can’t argue later that taxes on businesses should be cut even more (or whatever his long-term libertarian tax policy goal is).

By the way, “simplifying the tax code” is code language that makes the Cato Institute happy.

If you want to convince *me* that your interpretation and opinion is not just another interpretation and opinion, you'll need to provide sources, quotes (within context) and other more hard evidence to support your arguments.

My current opinion is that if Dean is able to reform the federal tax code the way he states that he'd like it reformed in the WSJ editorial this will *emmensely* help small buisnesses (and the rest of us) compete against the multinational corporations who have so much control over our government that market forces don't really affect them.

exporting jobs doesn't do that.

I don't see any evidence in your opinions that you have.

did you read my reply?

Hey, I think my reply is missing. I sort of repeated the stuff I've said elsewhere.

Short version: Dean seems to be a closet liberterian. I don't trust that he'll do the right things about taxes and his slavish devotion to balanced budgets without paying attention to what we really need to do to get the economy going could result in another depression. It would saddle Democratis with the perception of being bad on the economy for generations. I'm don't want to take that risk.

His record in Vermont is better than most of the records for Democratic governors and Congressfolks, IMHO.

running the corner convenience store to running the Wal-Mart corporation. What is the size of the Vermont economy? The population of Vermont? Don't get me wrong -- the guy running the corner convenience store may be able to run Wal-Mart -- but we can't tell from the nightly reciepts.

tax cuts along with other ones. He also wants to add a middle income payroll tax. At one debate, he refused to say he would reinstate the estate tax. The rich are going to love him.

Dean may raise the $85K/year income cap on the payroll tax. Do you think that middle income folks make over $85K/year individually?

he said he wouldn't spend the money raised by doing so on Social Security. You are referring to the debate where the moderator asked if he would spend the money from the estate tax on social security. It was assumed he would reinstate it. As usual you do no research, provide no link, and are dead wrong. Do you ever research your posts?

IMO, the estate has almost directly related to what very well may be the downfall of my father's small business. Here's the story...

My father started a small contracting business in 1972. Over the years, it has grown to where the yearly GROSS income is @$3 million.
Some business "advisers" told him that if something were to happen to him and my mother, his children would have to come up with $1.5 million for estate taxes. Their advice was to form a trust which would enable the transfer of $600,000 in assets to his children in the event of his death. These assets would not be subject to the estate tax. Now, mind you that these assets would also NOT be cash. They would be property - mainly his business that, since its grosses @$3million per year, would, they said, be valued at $3million.

Taking their advice, he and my mother set up the trust. A couple of years later, my mother died suddenly and unexpectedly from something (heart attack?). Suddenly, my father's business was split four ways -among him and his children. Oh, the horror that ensued. Finally, I realized that my father actually almost hated us because he had been forced to hand over a large part of his business before he was actually ready to do so.

Today, I work for the business, as I have done for the past seven years; however, I sold my "stock" back to him so as to not have any say-so in the actual operation of it. My sister has left, still owns her "stock" but threatens often to sell it to obtain "something" besides as worthless piece of paper noting her ownership of a business that is currently failing (losses for the past three years).
My brother is still here and still owns his but faces issues on a daily basis with my father.

It is such a mess and I expect any day to hear that one of them has given up and that the business will just collapse. Yet more jobs lost. Even though it would only be about 50 people, it would still be a terrible loss in my opinion.

All of this because estate taxes, IMO, ARE unfair. They affect many small businesses in just this way. Children inherit a business but not the money to be able to keep it after having to sell all the business' assets to pay estate taxes. That was what my father was afraid would happen to his business; so, instead, he tried to keep that from happening and ended up tearing it apart.

Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean, on the defensive over verbal slips, acknowledged making another one on Thursday.

At a campaign stop, Dean made his now familiar call for repealing President Bush’s tax cuts - but with the unfamiliar qualifier "some."

Answering a question about foreign aid, Dean said he would continue it, "but I do plan to get rid of some of the tax cuts to (former Enron Corp. chief) Ken Lay and the boys."

When a reporter asked whether Dean was softening his oft-repeated pledge to repeal all of the Bush tax cuts, Dean said he wasn’t.

"That was a slip of the tongue; it’s going to happen unless you read from a script," he said. "I have consistently said we are going to take away all of the Bush tax cuts because the middle class never did get any serious benefit."

<snip>

Dean insists full repeal is necessary to pay for expanding health insurance, homeland security and job creation. He also argues that Bush’s tax cuts for the rich have forced increases in local spending and taxes bigger than federal tax cuts received by the middle class.

<snip>

"My original position was I was going to get rid of the tax cuts except for those in the middle class. The reason I didn’t come out with that is because we couldn’t pay for the health insurance program and start to balance the budget and fund special education. The numbers do not add up," he said.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/09192003/news/50870.htm

So on this question at least, Dean is able to give a whole lot clearer answer than his supporters. :eyes: Maybe he's changed his mind since his trip to Texas and misspoke once but he says very clearly at least on September 19th that he plans to repeal ALL of the cut.

Now, we can discuss whether this policy is correct...

So, yes. He supports repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax bills.

…
Posted September 13, 2002
http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/1049/coverstory.htm

Hilarious. Look it's no secret to anybody on DU that Dean changes his mind alot. It's nothing for you to be scared of because we all know it already. I just asked the original question as a setup for a discussion about whether his position or Kerry's was the right one. I didn't know it was going to take all day and 80 posts just to arrive at the Dean supporters acknowledging what his position IS.

It isn't my fault that you wouldn't read the editorial.

It isn't my fault you were afraid to state in plain English your candidate's position.

That's the first sentence of the editorial. That looks about as straight forward as one could get, IMHO.

you knew the date of the Texas Triangle interview. It's so obvious you were afraid someone was gonna say 'gotcha'. lol

to which I add (in agreement):

with a caveat
…
I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation's infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it.
…
I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration. But unlike the tax initiatives of the current president, my program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet--not those whose needs are well provided for.
…

Q: Are you calling for the repeal of all the Bush tax cuts or just those passed this year?
A: All the cuts, though there are some tax cuts that we would look at as an economic-stimulus package."
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/b3845085.htm

All the cuts, except the cuts that he would give another name and keep?

...of paying more taxes compared to health benefits supposedly gained under dean's tax policy, which i don't find clear enough as it is?

tons of people ~do~ get a LOT of money back in the middle class... i know i know there are dean supporters who insist, as dean does, that the middle class didn't get a real tax cut; but i know and have spoken to many people who say they have, and a repeal will be a serious burden.

so my question is, if dean takes away their tax cut, will that be canceled out by the health benefits they get? if so, how much? and if not, who does this really benefit?

i have no health insurance at the moment. it is waaaaay too expensive for a just-out-of-grad-school freelance musician. student loan payments start in december... what will dean do for me? i am not employed by a company. do i get tossed to the side?

…
For a year now, I have been traveling this country advocating a repeal of Bush's tax cuts so that we can provide universal healthcare and restore fiscal discipline. Many have questioned the political wisdom of challenging the president on politically popular tax cuts.

I believe, however, that given a choice between having health insurance or keeping all of the Bush's tax cuts in place, most Americans will choose health insurance. My plan will cost $88.3 billion -- less than half of the president's tax cut -- with money left over to pay down the deficits run up by this administration.

My plan consists of four major components.

First, and most important, in order to extend health coverage to every uninsured child and young adult up to age 25, we'll redefine and expand two essential federal and state programs -- Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Right now, they only offer coverage to children from lower-income families. Under my plan, we cover all kids and young adults up to age 25 -- middle income as well as lower income. This aspect of my plan will give 11.5 million more kids and young adults access to the healthcare they need.

Second, we'll give a leg up to working families struggling to afford health insurance. Adults earning up to 185% of the poverty level -- $16,613 -- will be eligible for coverage through the already existing Children Health Insurance Program. By doing this, an additional 11.8 million people will have access to the care they need.

Many working families have incomes that put them beyond the help offered by government programs. But this doesn't mean they have viable options for healthcare. We'll establish an affordable health insurance plan people can buy into, providing coverage nearly identical to what members of Congress and federal employees receive.

To cushion the costs, we'll also offer a significant tax credit to those with high premium costs. By offering this help, another 5.5 million adults will have access to care.

Third, we need to recognize that one key to a healthy America is making healthcare affordable to small businesses.We shouldn't turn our back on the employer-based system we have now, but neither should we simply throw money at it. We need to modernize the system so employers will have an option beyond passing rising costs on to workers or bailing out of the system entirely. Fortunately, we have a model of efficient, affordable and user-friendly healthcare coverage: the federal employee health system.

With the plan I've put forth to the American people, we'll organize a system nearly identical to the one federal workers and members of Congress enjoy. And we'll enable all employers with less than 50 workers to join it at rates lower than are currently available to these companies -- provided they insure their work force. I'll also offer employers a deal: The federal government will pick up 70% of COBRA premiums for employees transitioning out of their jobs, but we'll expect employers to pay the cost of extending coverage for an additional two months. These two months are often the difference between workers finding the health coverage they need, or joining the ranks of the uninsured.

Finally, to ensure that the maximum number of American men, women and children have access to healthcare, we must address corporate responsibility. There are many corporations that could provide healthcare to their employees but choose not to. The final element of this plan is a clear, strong message to corporate America that providing health coverage is fundamental to being a good corporate citizen. I look at business tax deductions as part of a compact between American taxpayers and corporate America. We give businesses certain benefits, and expect them to live up to certain responsibilities.
…
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_health

The plan will cost an estimated, "$88.3 billion". This is paid for from some of the money saved by repealing Bush's tax cuts.

The Dean proposal expands Medicaid and CHIP to ages 25 and under. CHIP is expanded to adults earning up to "185% of the poverty level" (currently, $16,613).

For the "capitalist" half of the Dean plan: Folks with high health premium costs recived "a significant tax credit" to cushion the costs. The current "employer-based system" in use now will be modernized by upgrading it to the same healthcare coverage that "federal workers and members of Congress" have available to them.

Small buisnesses of less than 50 workers get lower rates than their larger competitors. Employers pick up the tab for 2 months in between jobs, but the costs of the COBRA premiums for those 2 months are subsidized, at 70%, by the federal government for employers. Corporations will receive "business tax deductions" as an incentive for supplying health care to their employees.

and it isn't clear how much it would cost. chip won't be applicable to me by the time dean manages to patch up the self-inflicted wounds re: washington to even try and get anything passed. what would be the tax credit? i have opportunities to buy into health insurance plans but they are still way too expensive. what would be the cost? is he just saying everyone can buy into an expensive plan, or will they be less expensive?

and he doesn't really address the problems with the cost of health care, which don't all have to do with patients... what will he do to streamline the process? kerry has been talking about what dean has laid out and more for much longer... and has addressed the administrative/legal problems that jack up the price. where does dean stand on those issues?

that was my original question really.

what do you gain, like a numerical figure, by giving up your tax cut for dean's health insurance plan?

a medical practice in Vermont, with his wife, where he practiced for about two decades.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=about_biography

it's kind of an important for voters... i mean, trust him-- choose to give up your tax cut for something that isn't even assured to pass, and might not be a better alternative?

from suffering total finantial ruin from health care costs associated with a serious injury or sickness.

I also know that if CHIP provides preventative care, then that will keep folks more healthy and prevent many illnesses and more serious injuries alltogether.

A Few Hundred Bucks Will Get Some Attention
by Nicholas Von Hoffman
…
A shrinking percentage of employers is able to offer employees even partially-paid-for health insurance. They can’t afford it, either, and when they have to go up against foreign companies who have no health-insurance costs—because they are based in societies where the costs are socialized—the price of insurance becomes ruinous.

Wal-Mart manages to offer health insurance to half a million employees at the cost of about $3,500 each, but it is hardly dream coverage. It is no coverage at all for retirees, and new hourly-wage hires have to wait half a year for the benefits to kick in; when they do, there is still a $1,000 deductible, and the kids’ flu shots aren’t covered anyway. Nevertheless, it’s better than the nothing that the nation’s 44 million uninsured are stuck with. Given Wal-Mart’s ferocious competition in general merchandise and groceries and whatever else they’re into, other companies will have to cut their health-insurance coverage to trim costs or go lower than Wal-Mart.
…
Howard Dean, an M.D. himself, has been reminding people at campaign stops that Harry Truman was asking Congress for a socialized medicine bill half a century ago. The call for action is even older. In 1929, Forbes magazine carried an article entitled "Gouged by Doctors: Hospital Costs Far Too High for Patients of Moderate Means—The Need for Business Leaders to Step in." Another Forbes article, called "When Medical Gougers Exploit the Sick," tells the story of a man who had to come up with $150 in cash before the doctor would perform an emergency appendectomy. The man in the latter article was able to borrow half the money for the operation from a neighbor. We are still staging neighborhood yard sales to pay for operations on small children in desperate medical and financial circumstances. As they say, the more it doesn’t change, the more it doesn’t change. What an unholy mess! People forced to buy prescription drugs of uncertain quality on the Internet. People declaring bankruptcy because they can’t pay their medical bills. Hospitals turning people away. Hospitals siccing wolfish debt collectors on dying cancer patients. Old people hoisting themselves onto buses to buy inexpensive drugs in Canada, and the American government—ever the stooge of the big drug companies—trying to stop the old people, who have to choose between taking their heart medicine and eating all seven days of the week.
…
http://www.observer.com/pages/observer.asp#

Snubbed again by the state party faithful, Kerry nevertheless turned defeat into an asset, painting himself as the "outsider" to Shannon the "insider." http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061903.shtml
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=58258&mesg_id=58570&page=

If you're consistant, you will, IMHO.

i was just repeating what dean says. i don't give a rat's ass. jeebus. lighten up. i'll add the sarcasm tags next time...

i wouldn't be one to obsess over details if i was a dean supporter know'm say'n.

EDIT: and by the way, that was from 1984 when kerry could actually be considered an "outsider". i don't care, but if you're at all consistent that shouldn't bother you in the least bit.

EDIT: and by the way, that was from 1984 when kerry could actually be considered an "outsider". i don't care, but if you're at all consistent that shouldn't bother you in the least bit.

Not only does the outsider vs. insider term resonate with others, but *I* fully subscribe to the reasoning that we need a Jimmy Carter type outsider who is connecting to folks (rather than listening to the corporate media that filters what we want) to get in there and *show* the Congresscritters what we want done and how we want it done. :)

that interview is old (very old it turns out). While I completely understand why the poster thought it was current what I fail to understand is why when I showed a very good reason why it wasn't people kept pretending it was. As to the campaign stop I have had the experience myself as a teacher. My first year I taught on more than a few days from just very broad notes. I had 6 classes that were all the same (geometry). I occasionally had the experience where I said things slightly differently from one class to another. I wasn't lying or confused just sloppy. It happens.

That's what comes from a muddled vision, unclear policies, and conflicting statements. Even your most ardent supporters can't make sense of your positions, and aren't sure which one to defend.

Good thing our choice is not between Bush and Dean ... we can do better!

that contrary to the falsehoods people like you like to say about Dean supporters we don't dismiss out of hand articles critical of Dean. Instead we read them and try to make sense of them. Sandandsea made an honest mistake when he posted the article from the Texas Triangle with a year old interview and said it was a current one. Texas Triangle did a poor job of labeling that interview and it took some time to track down.

The simple fact is you got your answer very early and then when that article was shown to be old you got the same answer again. It is, for the record, that he wants to repeal all of the tax cuts Bush put in and replace them with a much smaller targetted package. That seems both clear, concise and the answer you got.

The most disappointing aspect of this thread for me is that it has yet to be acknowledged by any of Dean's critics in this thread that the article was old. Why is that?

That really is what this thread is about and it is the truth that so many posts tried so desperately to avoid. As for 'the article' being old, no one is talking about that because it's unimportant. The subject of the thread is Dean's tax policy, not some old quote.

He and Gephardt want to repeal the whole tax cut to balance the budget and pay for health care. Kerry and Lieberman have attacked that position, saying that they should keep some of the tax cuts that were targeted toward the middle class. I think Edwards has also taken that position. I am not sure what Clark's position is, and I am assuming that Kucinich, Moseley-Braun and Sharpton want to repeal all of the tax cuts as well.

Did I leave anyone out?

Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope