Advice to Dem Candidates From Krugman...

[chiburb]

Essentially, he paints the picture of Bushco's "looting" of the Treasury, and the shows why the rollback of the COMPLETE tax breaks would be a mistake. Here is a snip:

"So if a Democratic candidate proposes a total rollback of the Bush tax cuts, he'll be offering an easy target: administration spokespeople will be able to provide reporters with carefully chosen examples of middle-income families who would lose $1,500 or $2,000 a year from tax-cut repeal. By leaving the child tax credits and the cutout in place while proposing to repeal the rest, contenders will recapture most of the revenue lost because of the tax cuts, while making the job of the administration propagandists that much harder.

Purists will raise two objections. The first is that an incomplete rollback of the Bush tax cuts won't be enough to restore long-run solvency. In fact, even a full rollback wouldn't be enough. According to my rough calculations, keeping the child credits and the cutout while rolling back the rest would close only about half the fiscal gap. But it would be a lot better than current policy.

The other objection is that the tricks used to sell the Bush tax cuts have made an already messy tax system, full of special breaks for particular classes of taxpayers, even messier. Shouldn't we favor a reform that cleans it up?

In principle, the answer is yes. But an ambitious reform plan would be demagogued and portrayed as a tax increase for the middle class. My guess is that we should propose a selective rollback as the first step, with broader reform to follow.

Will someone be able to find the political sweet spot, the combination of fiscal responsibility and electoral smarts that brings the looting to an end? The future of the nation depends on the answer. "

(So... who among the 9 candidates is advocating a total rollback vs a rollback on the rich?)

On edit: Link added: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/17/opinion/17KRUG.html

[Classical_Liberal]

1. I don't agree. since Dean will offer his own tax cut

that will undoubtedly save more money for most middle class families.

[chiburb]

4. ? Does Dean's plan include a rollback...

On the rich? Once again, I'm curious as to who's advocating a complete rollback (which Krugman suggests is a mistake), versus which candidates are proposing a rollback on the rich only. (Btw, Krugman ahs already made the argument for keeping the estate tax intact.)

[Cocoa]

6. I think Gephardt and Dean are for full rollbacks

Kerry and Lieberman are for partial rollbacks.

This is off the top of my head, based on one of the debates.


edit: and since then, Lieberman has proposed increasing the rate for the top income category.

[paulk]

8. this is true

Gephardt and Dean are for a complete rollback.

Lieberman actually comes out with a good idea.

All the other candidates want to keep the child tax credits and middle class tax cuts.

[Vitruvius]

2. And I love the way Krugman sound-bites the Bu$h tax-cut scam and

how it's looting the middle class:

"...the administration's tax cuts are, in a fundamental sense, phony, because the government is simply borrowing to make up for the loss of revenue. In 2004, the typical family will pay about $700 less in taxes than it would have without the Bush tax cuts — but meanwhile, the government will run up about $1,500 in debt on that family's behalf.

George W. Bush is like a man who tells you that he's bought you a fancy new TV set for Christmas, but neglects to tell you that he charged it to your credit card, and that while he was at it he also used the card to buy some stuff for himself. Eventually, the bill will come due — and it will be your problem, not his.

[camero]

3. It's too bad

we can't impeach and imprison him for embezzlement of the US Treasury. Along with his cohorts.

[Donna Zen]

5. No tax cuts for those over $200,000

with the money being used for jobs, and help for the states. (Krugman...Lumps of Labor: a column from last wk.)

This is Clark's position. IIRC, this is the position of other candidates as well.

Krugman is correct. Once in office, restructuring the tax policy makes sense; raising red-flags with the voters is just feeding the beast. Why do the GOP dirty ops work for them?

[spooky3]

7. Edwards would roll back cuts AND

treat dividends and capital gains, which disportionately are received by high income taxpayers, exactly the same as earned income.

That would go a long way toward reducing the deficit AND enhancing fairness immediately.