Dean in writing in the Friday Wall Street Journal op-ed page

[snyttri]

Could anyone post the article he wrote? The WSJ is a paid site.

[huckleberry]

1. see discussion here with link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=7216

[snyttri]

2. Thanks

[zoidberg]

3. That's brave of him

But it's nice to see that he's reaching out to the mainstream and conservative audiences out there. It's also nice to see the WSJ opinion page giving space to people with whom they disagree.

[snyttri]

4. The WSJ gives Dems space daily, but it seems like just one a day.

WSJ columnist Al Hunt is pretty good on CNN.

[Hailtothechimp]

5. Dean speaks these people's language

Grew up with money and investment types all around him. I think he can talk to the moneyed crowd

[snyttri]

6. That's good to know. So can Clark. He's an investment banker.

But being associated woth the investment business is frought with baggage. It sounds like the investment business is not involved much with Dean. Good for his still clean image


http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/Biography.htm

[AP]

7. Two things about this (taxes and balanced budgets)

First, on taxes, the big problem with taxes is that they are way too regressive. The
Democratic nominee needs to articulate a clear message about what is wrong with
the tax system today. Calling it 'too complicated' isn't enough. Calling it complicated
is like saying the problem with it is too complicated to understand. The problem with
taxes is too simple to ignore: through 1000 devices, the huge, rich businesses and
individuals are trying to camoflage the fact that their tax burdens are tiny compared
to middle income people (who are the workhorses of the economy). And the danger
of talking about simplifying the tax codes is that usually this talk lees to simplified
proposals which are also regressive (like flat taxes, and fewer brackets all
condensed at the lower end of the income tax range).

As for balanced budgets over the business cycle. To me that's code for "we're willing
to reduce the size of government when times are lean and we're willing to lower
taxes when times are good" both of which are sentiments that would make FDR roll
over in his grave. What a progressive tax policy should do is spread the burden in a
way that promotes a fair competition and a lot of access to the marketplace for
people who otherwise wouldn't have access but for taxpayer-financed public
eductation and small business loans, etc. If this balance ends up producing a lot of
added tax revenue, it should be reinvested to create even more opportunities, and
more progress, and more investment in the future, and taxes should be continously
updated in a manner which reinforces progressivity (ie, equallizing tax burdens
accross the entire income range). Until there are no starving people in America, and
until I'm driving my solar powered flying card (born of federally funded research at a
public university), then I don't want to hear a damn thing about 'balancing budgets
over the business cycle'.

Business needs to hear moderation from the nominee, sure. But the kind of
moderation I'd like to hear from the candidates is more like what I heard from Clinton
last week: rich people are going to be way richer in a fair, liberal economy, in which
everyone can participate, and wealth is spread fairly. I don't think the moderation
they need to hear is that we'll cut your taxes like Republicans promise.