best and worst about Howard Dean

The best thing about Howard Dean's candidacy is that he's opted out of federal funds for the primary, so he isn't under spending limits.

The worst thing is Dean's tax-plan of reverse-all-the-Bush-tax-cuts.
A majority of Americans won't vote for their own taxes to be raised. Ask Walter Mondale. Ask (1992 primary candidate) Paul Tsongas.

If you have a connection to the Dean campaign, can you please ask them
to come out with a tax-proposal of their own, instead of just reversing recent tax-cuts?

Promising to reverse the child-tax credit is especially a mistake. It's so popular, Congress would never go along with reversing it. Proposing to reverse that will only hurt Dean, for a policy which won't be implemented even if he's elected.

Once again, if you have contact with the Dean campaign or know someone who does, please ask that Dean issue his own tax-proposal which includes the popular child-tax credit.

...response: "I can't give the upper middle class a tax break because people would complain that I'm only helping the rich."

Dean is doing what the Republicans do, but for different ends.

Republicans like to have middle class people conflate, in their minds, their class interests with the class interests of the super wealthy. They do it to make them think that when Bush gives tax breaks to the top .5%, people in the middle class are benefiting.

Well, Dean wants the middle class to think that, if he's going to ask the rich to pull their weight, then the middle class are going to pull their weight too.

What's so fucked up about this is twofold:

(1) Dean's idea of the rich and middle class pulling their weight is going back to 2000 tax rates and brackets. Psst, HOWARD, the rich weren't exactly pulling their weight in 2000. Furthermore, the rich are richer and the poor are poorer. If you told the rich that we'd have the exact same tax code in 2004 as 2000, except with even more wealth polarization, they'd think that it was a Republican who was giving them such a wonderful gift.

(2) Who in the world thinks that the middle class hasn't been having their asses kicked by the tax code, while the rich have been contributing a fair share at any time in the last 20 years? Howard Dean and most Republicans, that's who.

If Dean were to soften his tax stance in your favor, would you give him credit or complain that he was waffling?

nt

taxes enough to get it right the first time, you have to wonder what the hell his game is.

The problem if he changed wouldn't be waffling. It would be trust. I simply wouldn't (and don't) trust him.

Either he has too much contempt for the intelligence of the average Democrat, or he isn't a real Democrat, or all of the above.

And what nickname are you talking about?

...and there are enough people tired enough of the stupid nickname that you're guaranteed to get alerted...

Because Dean is simply advocating a return to the Clinton tax regime. It's not ideal, but we could do a lot worse.

We're talking about campaign promises. In 1992 Clinton promised lower taxes and won.

As a matter of policy, our tax system was better in 2000 than it is today.

But now that the child tax credit has been expanded from $600 to $1,000 per child, Congress won't reverse that, and Howard Dean is only hurting his campaign by promising to reverse that.

You can't transpose the 2000 tax code on the 2004 economic reality and, voila, have a progressive, sensible tax code.

The 2000 tax code wasn't perferction, to begin with. The Republicans worked alot of regressivity into the tax code from the moment they controlled Congress right to the end. So Dean's ideal, to begin with, is the product of compromise.

More importantly, economic realities are always changing. And the economic reality today is that more people are slipping into starvation and poverty more rapidly than incomes are slipping, so poor and middle class people are worse off on the same money. The rich are getting richer on the same income, and many are finding it even easier to make more money (and are able to buy firesale assets from the rest of America, further consolidating their wealth and power).

As I said, transposing a tax code that sort of worked on the 2000 economy on the 2004 economy is great...if you're rich.

To repeat, if you told the rich in 2000 that you're going to do that in 2005, they'd think Bush had one a second term.

I appreciate that you -- and average voter -- might not have a sufficiently sophisticated understanding of math, economics, and tax policy to understand what Dean is proposing. However, Dean understands. When I listen to him talk about this I think he must not think very highly of his supporters. He must think they're stupid.

That's what I think when I hear Dean talk about his tax policy.

He waited until he became president to do it.


Dean is already running on raising taxes. It is the blunder that will do him in.

It went up for a few, down for most, and the sum total was that it was progressive.

That's what Clinton cared about most: progressivity.

Dean cares so little about progressivity it's apalling. Especially since that's the thing the tax code screams the loudest when you look at it: I AM NOT PROGRESSIVE!!!, the tax code screams.

Dean is tone deaf to that fact, and I don't think it's unintentional.

and I'd love for you to consider joining the Clark campaign and possibly even donate. I think we can win this thing with him. He and Edwards are my two favs personally.


www.clark04.com

how Bush could beat Edwards. I'm going to stick with Edwards.

Furthermore, everything I believe in comes to a head in Edwards. He has NEVER said anything with which I disagree, and the things I think are most important he foregrounds in the exact same order I rank them.

Listening to Edwards talk is like listening to myself think.

If I stopped supporting him, it would be like I was turning my back on myself.

Also, Clark doesn't need my cash just yet. I'd give to Kucinich and Sharpton before I'd give to Clark.

The child tax credit isn't just for the "upper" middle class. It's broadly applicable and broadly popular.

Can Joe Trippi be persuaded?

I don't want another Walter Mondale result in the general election.

they've changed their stance.

However, I think they've really played their hand here. By conflating the middle class, upper middle class, and the super wealthy's class interests, they show what they think about the FACT that the middle class bear a huge burden of keeping the economy going while shifting all the wealth they create to the wealthiest. Dean doesn't care about that reality, and seems to be relying on those people to save the economy, and pay for whatever social benefits he'd provide, while continuing to give his class -- the Wall St super rich -- a continued free ride.

I didn't get a check like many others did. I have to wait for the additional credit until I file. In effect, the loss of the money in the form of an early check makes the child tax credit LESS beneficial to the upper middle class than the rest of the middle class.

He and his wife received gifts of $1 million when they were starting out. The house was paid for in cash up front. No monthly nut. I don't expect him to feel our pain. And I don't begrudge him any of it.

However, rich people are different, and his personal experience with money might have something to do with his inability to acknowledge the disaster that is his tax plan. If he doesn't think we don't appreciate extra money in our paychecks, he's nuts.

Now I've heard him say that there was no Bush tax cut for the middle class. There was. Did other taxes go up at the state level and are we getting slaughtered with higher health care costs, tuition costs, etc.? Yes. But does anybody believe all of those things that the federal government really has no control over will magically go down should we return to a balanced budget? That's a leap of faith that few voters will make. They'll have it drummed into them by BushCo that a Dean presidency will cost them money, and they're far too cynical to believe that Howard will make it up to them on the back end in the form of lower health care and education costs.

additional federal money. However, there would be a significantly leser need for additional levies and/or renewals if education and infrastructire were adequately funded at the federal level. If levies aren't renewed and new levies aren't passed, taxes DO go down.

That benefit is in addition to the healthcare issue, which is much more immediate. All I ask is that any naysayers talk to a family that has been denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition and find out how huge an issue this is. Elimninating this one thing makes this plan advantageous to tens of thousands (if not more) simply based on that one benefit.

.

Best thing: Dean will be the next President of the USA.

Worst thing: We have to wait until January 2005 for his inauguration! :)

Our kids are long grown, and I am not familiar with the child tax credit. If it is the same as the EITC, here is something Dean wrote about this.

Gov. Dean's letter to the IRC on the EITC.

SNIP...."More than 19 million low-income Americans claimed the Earned Income Tax Credit in 2002. The Credit is one of the most effective tools for raising millions of people out of poverty.

On June 13, 2003, the Internal Revenue Service promulgated an announcement that threatens the basic underpinnings of the EIC. The IRS is planning to begin a program that will require 45,000 EIC claimants that the IRS terms “high-risk taxpayers” to “pre-certify” their eligibility for 2003 benefits by proving that their children lived with them for more than half a year. In 2004, the IRS plans to increase the number of pre-certifications to two million, and up to five million in subsequent years......"

If it is not the same, forgive.

with tax policy.

Our tax code actually does help the poor alot.

If we help the poor any more, but not the middle class, we're going to have more downward pressure on wages.

I'm too tired to get into it. If people want to talk about how helping the middle class promotes more upward class mobility, and allows people to compete in and, therefore create a more competitive economy, whereas helping the poor at the expense of the middle class just creats more crappy jobs, and less upward class mobility (and perhapes more downward mobility), then let's do it here...and I'll write more.

...possibly more than the truly poor would.

The middle class is much more vulnerable to property tax increases, school fee increases, and healthcare premium increases than either the rich or the poor (the rich have plenty of disposable income to cover increases...the poor have social programs that cover some of these issues).

An economic program that 1) greatly increases taxes on the very wealthy, 2) modestly taxes the middle class and 3) leaves the poor alone while providing universal health care and increased spending to education and infrastructure would do several things:

It would help everybody by encouraging preventative care (less costly than emergency care) and virtually eliminating unreimbursed medical expenses, which emergency departments need to absorb. It would also eliminate the "pre-existing condition" exclusion for coverage.

It would help the middle class by increasing federal spending for education and infrastructure, reducing the need for increases in property and local income taxes and providing better services (and, arguably, higher property values).

It WILL take some selling, but I believe that Dean's plan is the most responsible and will provide the greatest overall benefit. In the general election, Dean's campaign needs to show, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, how much the average middle class family will actually SAVE with his plan. Once that's been done, I think most will be able to see the merits of repealing a failed economic strategy in favor of a plan that works for everybody.

He has said that he wants to use the tax code to help the poor, and, in respone to a question about the "middle class" he referred to them as the "upper middle class" and said they need to pull their weight or Dean would hear it from the middle class (huh?).

And do you really think state and local governments controlled by Republicans are going to use balanced federal budgets to suddenly make their tax codes progressive?

Firstly, balancing budgets without addressing progressivity was what Hoover did, and it made the economy worse. But, even if Dean didn't drive America into a depression, it's not going to stop state and local governments from milking citizens regressively.

I'd MUCH rather have a president who used the bully pulpit to argue for progressive tax policies, and then watch state and local governments petitioned by citizens for exactly the same thing that the federal government was giving them (ie, progressivity).

When I think of this issue it really makes me wonder why ANY democrat supports Dean. He is SO wrong on taxes, and it goes much farther than simply the stupidity of campaigning on raising taxes. This guy actually doesn't care about the thing that is the biggest halmark of how the Republicans are ripping off Americans and destroying the economy -- the shift in the tax burden off the rich and on to the middle class.

They can, however, attempt to implement plans to eliminate the issue altogether.

Will Republican-dominated local governments embrace progressive taxation? No. However, if the federal government adequately funds the schools and roads, property taxes WILL decrease (unless the citizens of a given community are idiots). Without the need, the voters will not vote for new taxes (or to renew existing levies that are no longer needed). Taxes WILL decrease for the middle class.

Essentially, we're both advocating a lessening of the burden on the middle class. The only disagreement is the degree of the cut. I feel that it's perfectly reasonable to eliminate ALL of the Bush tax cuts as per Dean's plan. I'm advocating this knowing full well that it may even cost me a couple of bucks (I'm upper-middle class and single). Keeping Bush's middle-class tax "cuts" would reduce the services we could provide...services that benefit both the poor and the middle class. I don't think that's a responsible thing to do.

It's always an issue. We always need to raise revenue to make investments in society which make society create more wealth, so that we can do more to reduce misery, and make people happier, healthier, wealthier, and have more options.

Like Keynes, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton, I think you create more wealth by spreading wealth broadly among the middle class.

Dean doesn't feel that way, which is reflected in his attitude towards tax poliy.

His plan does nothing to help the wealthy, so we can eliminate that issue right now. He does help both the poor and the middle class by providing benefits that 1) they were unable to obtain previously (like healthcare without the pre-existing condition exclusion) and 2) they found too expensive or lost when they lost their jobs.

What Dean is proposing is a return to Clinton taxes. How is that not "progressive" enough? It seemed to do the job before. The difference is that Dean will use the additional tax revenue to provide something of real value for 90+% of the population in the form of universal healthcare.

I guess that what I'm having trouble seeing is how Clinton taxes with additional REAL benefits to families isn't "progressive" or valuable. Dean's not proposing anything that unusual, just a redistribution of wealth (which is what ALL tax plans are). The difference I see is that Dean's plan will give tangible, definite benefits instead of "money in the pocket".

Dean is going to make the middle class pay through the nose for anything he gives them. He has SAID that he wants to use the tax code to help the poor. He calls the middle class the upper middle class when he talks about the middle class and taxes.

If you don't understand what I'm saying about transposing the 2000 tax code on the 2004 economy, then, either (1) you need to listen to some of the other candidates talk about taxes, because listening to Dean isn't giving you the ability to understand the issues, or (2) I understand why you like Dean.

How, exactly, is Dean "going to make the middle class pay through the nose for anything he gives them" by eliminating just the Bush tax "cuts"? It seems that I did fine under Clinton...going to "upper-middle" is just going to cost me a little more, but it's not a big deal.

I thnk everybody would like to use the tax code to "help the poor". Hll, they're the ones who need to be helped. The nice thing about Dean's plan is that they get helped, the middle class get helped, even the wealthy get helped (in the form of lower crime rates). The cost is nothing for the poor (who can't afford it anyway), a little bit for the middle class (who's benefits should easily outweigh the additional taxes) and a lot for the wealthy (who still get SOME benefit).

I just want to know how you think the middle class loses under Dean's plan.

wealthier as you get older.

But what it doesn't capture is whether you're better off than you would have been had a democrat been president.

Generally, a Democrat is going to make sure that people who work hard for a living are able to realize a pretty big chunk of the value they create for society (and will provide a safety net which (1) allows you to reach higher, and (2) protects you in case you try and fail).

A Republican, on the other hand, creates a society which allows really rich people to consolidate their wealth and power (via, eg, eliminating inheritance tax, and giving Halliburton tax money).

So, unless you stand to inherit over a million bucks or are a board member for Halliburton, I can guarnantee you're going to be better off under a democrat committed to creating a society which rewards people who work hard with wealth (rather than people with wealth who don't want to work hard with more wealth). Furthermore, the Democrat's version of the economy creates a bigger pie for more people to benefit from.

Dean does not have a plan which flows more wealth down and out among the middle class. It's not in his tax code. It's not in his jobs plan. And he's asking the middle class to pay through the nose for his health care plan.

a huge amount of accumulated wealth (especially after my divorce 6 years ago).

I don't doubt that I'd be better off under a Republican if my short-term personal wealth were all I was concerned about. However, when you factor in things like property value fluctuations due to school quality and crime rates, I'm better off, even financially, with the Democrat.

I don't understand how returning to Clinton-era taxes (a very modest increase for the middle class) and, in exchange, providing universal health care and increased federal funding for education and infrastructure isn't anything but a great deal for the middle class. I, personally, already HAVE the health benefits that Dean proposes (FEHBP) and live in a remarkably stable community (virtually no need for levies at any time), and I STILL think I'd benefit. The benefits to an average middle-class family without adequate healthcare or living in an average suburban community would be much greater. How is this not progressive, or at least fair?

didn't work for a living, and/or inheritied your wealht, and/or, you were in the top .5% of income earners (again, mostly from unearned income). Those happen to be the people who really run America.

Notice, it appears to be Howard Dean. He's never made more than 170K/year with his wife in earned income, yet they have over 3.5 million in assets, and probably stand to inherity a couple million more from their parents.

On the other hand, Edwards and his wife have EARNED over 50 million in their lifetime, taxed at the HIGHEST rates, and stand to inherit very little from their parents.

If you work for a living, Edwards is the guy who knows where you're coming from (his kids might not, but he and his wife do).

As for Clinton-era taxes, I'm all for UHC. But I want it paid for out of progressive taxes. The middle class is already heavily burdened. Now Dean wants to give them a big expensive benefit & he wants to lump it onto their current tax burden? They'll all end up as pauper wage slaves with braces. Why CAN'T he spread the burden more fairly? Why can't he raise the cap gains rates a little to pay for health care? The rich have REALLY been undburdened over the last 30 years. There's a lot of room to get taxes from them, and I'm not talking just individuals. I'm talking corporations too. And I'm not talking about earned income rates. I'm talking about unearned income.

this thread, so feel free to consolidate if you wish. Actually, I inherited nothing, I DO work for a living, I'm only in the top 4 or 5 % income-wise (not the top .5%) and I'd still do better (purely short-term financially) with Republicans. I only have MY income, but I make about $130k per year (not $170k), intend to retire at 48 (Dean is 55), and expect to retire with assets in excess of $1.5M. It's hardly a stretch for Dean to be in the financial situation he's in.

I guess that it's just a difference of degrees. I think that progressive taxation is a good thing, right up until it becomes socialist. I also believe in providing financial incentive for innovation and hard work, even when that benefit extends to your progeny who may accomplish nothing for themselves.

I DO see where you're coming from, but I don't think that Dean's plan will be nearly as harmful to the middle class as you seem to. In fact, I think it will be a great thing for the middle class.

Thanks, again for explaining. We may not agree, but I think it's always good to understand other people's viewpoints.

burdenn is going to be lighter under EVERY Dem tax plan EXCEPT Dean's. Dean is still asking earned income earners to bear a bigger burden, and isn't offering much relief. Every other candidate wants to shift some of that burden off of earned income earners and on to some unearned income.

It's not socialist to aske for a two-tier cap gains tax with the higher rate triggered by high AGI. That's just a way to make sure people who make less money don't end up paying a higher % of their income in taxes. Furthermore, it helps people who work to work harder by not strapping on a big yolk and asking them to do all the pulling. It's good capitalism to help people who work hard reap the rewards of their labors through sensible, progressive tax policy.

Care to rethink your support for Dean?

I don't have a problem with the middle class paying bargain rates for healthcare and better schools. I'd much rather support a candidate who's priorities are on the fiscally conservative side. The way I see it, Dean's plan will cost the average middle class family a few hundred a year more in taxes and save them thousands in healthcare premiums and local taxes while working to balance the federal budget. THAT'S the kind of plan I'd like to see.

nt

Every family?

You think he will get lambasted on lack of foreign policy? Just wait till Bush and the GOP attacks Dean as the "big taxer". Get ready.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/31/politics/campaigns/31ECON.html?pagewanted=2&hp

From today's NY TIMES:

Mr. Lieberman, meanwhile, would restructure all the tax rates, pushing up the top bracket to 39.6 percent and creating a "recapture" tax that would raise rates even higher for those families with incomes above $250,000. Campaign officials say the net result would be $1.1 trillion in additional tax revenue over 10 years, and a reduction in taxes for 98 percent of taxpayers.

Mr. Edwards as well would try to reduce taxes on middle-income households. His plan calls for about $160 billion in new tax benefits, including a tax credit against down payments on a home and lower taxes on dividends for middle-income households.

Mr. Kerry would retain the Bush tax cuts for people below the top brackets, and would add new benefits like a tax credit to offset college tuition costs.

...since the tax code is the Republicans most important tool for screwing the middle class and helping the super rich.

Either Dean thinks he's going to get elected by not appearing to threaten the tax code-delivered hegemony for the rich, but will change it if he gets elected, or he's a total right winger on taxes and thinks the voters are too stupid to realize it.

Yes, a lot of people give up their tiny tax cuts (hey, I'm one of the very rare people that saved over a grand, and it's still nothing for me to give up).

In return, they're getting universal health care and increased funding for education and infrastructure. Comprehensively, this IS a "cut" for the middle class and the poor. The only ones that really "lose" are those who can afford to pay a little more.

You provide few services, including universal health care, to keep the underpaid masses quiet, while the people at the top continue to reap the bulk of the rewards of the system.

I'd rather have the society with upward social mobility, and more wealth spread among the middle class. The first step to achieving that is a progressive tax code.

(Notice how the increasingly regressive tax code over the last 30 years has reduced upward social mobility and has turned the middle class into net wealth losers?)

I believe that the healthcare issue is one of the key components to our economic health. Here's why:

Under a plan such as Dean's, the exclusion for pre-existing conditions is eliminated. This alone makes the entire plan a winner for many people. Most people have health insurance tied to their jobs. Lose the job - lose the insurance. Get a new job - get new insurance, WITHOUT coverage for any ongoing medical conditions you've been treated for in the past... Dean's plan eliminates this, for a maximum of 7.5% of adjusted gross income. If your income changes, so do the premiums. Lose your job, you get the same insurance free.

There's a local hospital that layed off 40 people, mostly custodial staff and nurses, because their unreimbursed medical costs went from $8M to $12M in one year. I know a woman who was layed off from her administrative job at another hospital when their unreimbursed medical expenses grew to over $110M per year. When people don't have health care we ALL pay, whether it's in the form of higher medical costs or layoffs or decreased services. Dean's plan eliminates this.

People without healthcare benefits will not be seen at most doctor's offices, but they can't be turned away from emergency departments. The result? 1) they get no preventative care, increasing the ultimate cost of treatment for conditions that have advanced far beyond where they would have been with regular doctor visits and 2) we all experience decreased service levels at emergency departments that have to bear the strain of both emergency treatment and non-emergency treatment of those without healthcare benefits. Again, Dean's plan eliminates this problem.

If Dean's plan did nothing else, healthcare would be enough, but it goes further...

Dean's plan provides for increased federal spending for both education and infrastructure. This will result in both better services and a reduction in the ned for property and local income tax increases...both of which are concerns to the middle class.

Will the middle class pay a little more federal income tax than they now pay under Bush's tax shift? Yes. Their overall financial burden will decrease, however, and they will enjoy higher levels of local service. On a dollar-for-dollar basis, they win.

Having UHC doesn't solve all the problems in society. It doesn't solve income inequality and social immobility. However, progressive tax codes do way more to achieve those things. I definitely place progressive tax reform much higher than UHC.

Look at America over the last 30 years. To you, what is the biggest problem with our society? What has been going wrong? What are Republicans trying to do to America?

The things that I think are the most important issues confronting society are not the things Dean thinks are most important.

I do happen to think that universal healthcare is one of the biggest issues we have to deal with. I believe that the benefits realized from universal healthcare will go a long way toward solving some of our other problems like unemployment and quality of care.

And slave plantations? On the plantation and in the UK, they had a lot of people working crappy jobs at low (no) wages, and the purpose of universal health care is to make sure there's minimum level of underemployed people to fill the crappy jobs.

If I had to chose between the two, I'd take social mobility, progressive tax, and private health care. However, I know that you don't have to chose between the two, and you can have both. However, Dean barely talks about social mobility and progressive tax (two things that, in the US due to peculiar circumstances, go hand in glove).

I can't emphasize how much I think this is a HUGE problem with Dean's candidacy. Either, due to his biography, he is so removed from the reality of American life that he doesn't see reality, or he sees it, but he's really running to preserve the hegemony, but with a D rather than an R after his name.

"progressive tax". I'm thinking that it's a system that facilitates "social mobility", but (knowing a few people who need some "social mobility" and seeing what a huge leg up this plan would give them) I don't understand how you'd rather see things done. I think that basics like universal health care and a good public education provide more "social mobility" than anything else.

I'm open to comments....I'm seriously trying to see where our differences lie.

reflects the fact that the more money you have, the less you value an additional dollar (because it's easier to get another dollar -- ie, you don't have to work as many hours and take as many risks to get it).

If you make 10K a year, you'd have to probably work another full time job to make another 10K. If you were a lawyer or doctor, you'd probably have to work Saturdays and Sundays every day for a month to make another 10K. If you were a billionaire, you could go play golf and watch your interest accumulate on your no-risk savings account in order to make another 10K.

So, we don't charge all three of those people 30% takes on that additional 10K. Oops. However, in the US we now tax most people who work for a living, from a 30K/year secretary to the doctor/lawyer 300K earner the same, or oops, even MORE than we charge the billionaire on his no-risk income.

That is so wrong. You can't burden the things that are value to society more than the things that aren't valuable to society. You encourage what you don't burden. In America we don't burden extreme wealth, so we get a polarization of wealth and little social mobility. If you're rich you get richer. If you're not rich, it's harder to get rich.

Even worse, we burden the people we expect to work the hardest to make society work -- ie, we tax workers at the highest rates. Ie, we discourage hard work. We make it harder for the engine of our economy to do its job. Just look around. That's what's happening today. We're putting the middle class into unbelievable debt and anxiety. Those people are having a hard time raising their kids to have options, and are having hard time doing much else but be wage slaves, contributing to the extreme wealth of people much wealthier.

That's the sort of stuff tow which Dean has displayed no sympathy -- YET, TO ME, THIS IS THE CENTRAL PROBLEM WITH OUR SOCIETY TODAY!

This is also why I'm so enthusiastic about Edwards. He is the canidate most in tune with this issue. This, in fact, is the issue he's organized his campaign around. This is why I understand this as I do, and have an Edwards sig line. This is why you don't understand this stuff and support someone else.

"This is why you don't understand this stuff and support someone else."

That aside, I think I understand what you're saying, and I partially agree, I think. I just need a couple of things clarified:

1) Do you think that taxation under Clinton worked for the middle class (or anybody)?

2) Do you believe that Dean does, in fact, intend to do what he can to return us to Clinton-era taxes?

3) What tax plan, if not Clinton-era, are you advocating? I understand that you're looking for a "progressive" system, but how, precisely, does that work? Is "progressive" simply another term for "tax the hell out of the rich and lower everybody else's taxes" (to a greater degree that Clinton did), or do you have something else in mind?

I'm just trying to figure out if our differences are fundamental or procedural. I DON'T believe in excessive taxation of ANY group and I feel that things generally worked under Clinton. I don't mind paying my fair share and I'd even advocate something like eliminating the FICA cap and exempting the first $10k from FICA withholding. I'm just put off by the idea that the "rich" should foot the entire bill. I think it should be a shared burden. There's nothing wrong with some people doing better, financially, than others as long as everybody's basis needs are taken care of.

you and I understand and care about and whom we support.

As:

(1) Clinton changed the tax code dramatically in 94 -- he added more tax bands, with progressive rates, and took the tax burden off the middle class. It wasn't perfect (he was dealing with a Senate and Congress that was very tightly divided, even though Dems had an edge).

(2) and AGAIN -- times change. In 93, Clinton didn't try to give us a tax code that made sense for the 1988 economy. Why does the 2000 tax code make sense in 2005?

Times change. Wealth scales shift. Anytime you go back 5 years, you're giving a gift to the people who got richer in those 5 years, and you're burdening people who are poorer on the same income.

Furthermore, from 94-2000, the congress (controlled by Republicans) dismantled some of the progressivity in the code, and refused to give Clinton much more that would have been helpful. Lowering the cap gains rate was the most regressive thing that happened.

(3) I'm advocating a Clinton-STYLE approach to taxes, but NOT the Clinton-ERA CODE. See, Dean is intentionally misleading people by conflating these two very different things. He thinks if he says Clinto-era code structure, people will think he means Clinton-style code. He doesn't. He very clearly states that he wants to return to those brackets, rates, tax breaks, etc. They weren't all that progressive by 2000, and they're definitley much less so in 2005. Dean know this. He's selling his supporters a bill of goods.

If you want to see some GOOD tax proposals, look at Edwards, Lieberman, and Kucinich. It's not taxing the hell out of the rich. It just means taxing at different marginal rates. It also means giving breaks for the ways middle class people accumulate wealth. And it means, in Edwards's case, a two-tiered cap gains rate, based on AGI. That's progressivity. It means getting a little more tax revenue from UNearned income, and taking the pressure off people who EARN (ie, work for) their money. It also means asking corporations to bear a little more of the tax burden. That's progressivity too.

I do agree, in principle, that Clinton-style and Clinton-era DO mean different things and that one does not necessarily mean the other with the passage of time.

I also agree that, were I given the opporunity to pick and choose, I'd incorporate parts of a few different plans (Edwards' definitely among them). Aside from the fact that 1) you see plans that you have a greater affinity for and 2) you question the "progressiveness" of Dean's plan, how would Dean's plan not accomplish a lot of good for the middle class? I'm not talking about it being a cure-all, I'm talking about it offering some benefits to the middle class....benefits that outweigh the additional tax burden. I don't think it's a perfect plan. I don't agree completely with many of his positions (the death penalty imediately springs to mind). I can understand how you'd feel that there were better plans that had been proposed. I don't understand how this plan is as bad as you seem to say it is.

tax policy to his supporters. He is doing this because he DOESN'T want to take the burden off the rich, but he still wants to deliver on policy (UHC, specifically).

I don't like it one bit.

...well, as much as Clinton did, anyway. The wealthy will LOSE all of their "Bush tax cuts". I don't see how he's been anything but completely honest about this...I certainly had no problem understanding what he wants to do.

years, the rich will be better off than they were then, because, going back to 2000 rates and brakcets today will be less progressive than it was then.

So, Dean is offerring a tax/economic situation for the middle and working class that is crappier than the one they had in 2000, which, remember, was the product of Republican meddling from 94-2000, when they controlled congress.

Hooray for Dean.

Are you REALLY sure you don't want to support a candidate who has a better sense of and more concern for people who work for a living and don't stand to inherit large sums of money, and haven't amassed over 3.4 million in asset despite never having earned jointly with his wife more than 170K in any one year, and whose parents haven't given him 1 million bucks in the last decade (was it a decade)????

Are you actually saying that people who have money are automatically unable to craft fair tax legislation? That's just ridiculous. Dean's plan might not be as "progressive" as you'd like to see, but it DOES have the added benefit (which Clinton's plan didn't) of universal healthcare. Comparing the two plans without taking the healthcare benefit into consideration is disingenuous.

would stop using the phrase "universal health care" to wrongly (and a little too generously) describe his plan. It sounds really nice, but is way off the mark when that pesky reality is factored into the equasion.

The plan, even at the very optimistic numbers posted on his Issues section, does not even provide a guarantee of insurance for the 44 million in the US without. Sure, some will get no cost health care, others will get a tax credit (how much, we don't know... the good doctor is not very good with specifics). The rest will get what? "A message" of corporate responsibility...

Sounds like a "message" of additional slouching toward more privatization of public functions. Or perhaps a "message" of the degree of truth and fair treatment the working class can expect from Dr. Dean?

BTW... there IS one candidate who actually DOES propose universal health care with the funding source all lined up... he would be one of the actual real life populists in the race... but gee... why worry about semantics, right?

Best: Big special interests will get a serious downsizing.

Worst: They'll be replaced by 2 million small special interests who will tie up the Whitehouse phone system and crash the server with requests, opinions and feedback. Democracy can be chaotic.

he said it was so that we could start fresh from the Clinton policy and then we could make adjustments later.

I do not expect his "rescind all Bush cuts" will be his entire stance on tax policy going into the General.

I like the proposal at the U-Blog:

http://dean2004.blogspot.com/2003_06_22_dean2004_archive.html#105656906750477784

Dean's already argued for the tough medicine, in raising the cap on FICA wages. Why have a cap at all? Make FICA applicable to all wages, and further, eliminate the first 15-20K from having to pay any FICA payments at all. That's right, a tax-cut.

In essence, everyone making under ~$110k (and this is single wage earners, for married couples both working, it'd be ~$220k) would recieve a tax break, with those at ~$20k annually seeing their payroll taxes eliminated, and those individuals above ~$90k (effectively ~$110k, because the first ~$20k is eliminated) and couples above $220k seeing their taxes raised.

This would stimulate the economy, as anyone's first $20K goes right into spending; and at the same time, ensure the long-term stability of social security, by raising the taxes of the top ~10% wage-earners.