Dean's position on the tax cut is problematic for a general election

[bluestateguy]

Howard Dean's position that the Bush tax cuts should be entirely repealed will not sell well with a general election audience, and it has its limits even within a Democratic primary.

We can all agree that the tax cuts were wrong in the first place and should not have been enacted, save perhaps for the one time $300-$600 rebate in 2001. But they are now incorporated into the tax code, and tens of millions of middle and lower income Americans have adjusted their montly budgets on the basis of the current tax code. The extra $50 a month some middle class person now gets because of the tax cut is money that is used to pay for groceries, or the phone bill or the electric bill every month. These things matter in hard times. How can we then ask that such individuals must now pay an additional $50 a month to close the budget deficit? These are the people who be hurt the most if the tax cuts are entriely repealed, not the rich, who can clearly afford the tax increase. Indeed, the bottom line for these voters is that they will have to pay more of their money to the government. That's all they will see. Dean's position will allow the Bush team to positon itself as the protector of the working man against higher taxes. There is no reason why that should happen in the middle of a recession, given this Administration's record on job creation.

The position of Kerry, Edwards and Clark calling for the repeal of the tax cuts that have not yet gone into effect and repeal of the tax cuts for the wealthy is far more palatable and far more humane.

[Demobrat]

1. All Dean has to do is offer a choice.

Bush's tax cuts or guaranteed health care. Problem solved.

[denverbill]

2. Dean can defend it.

To quote him "People would gladly pay the taxes they paid in the 90's if they could have the economy they had in the 90's." And it's true.

Sure, it might be tough seeing that $50 disappear from your paycheck, but $50 is squat compared to getting no raise instead of a 5% raise, or getting your health care benefits cut.

[Renew Deal]

4. So he is making promises he can't keep.

To quote him "People would gladly pay the taxes they paid in the 90's if they could have the economy they had in the 90's." And it's true.


You really think he can bring back the 90's economics? That's immposible. The economy can improve, but the internet boom is over. This is a different time and post-9/11. Also, a lot of people seem to ignoere the health issue outside of the Democratic party.

[quaker bill]

5. You don't actually believe

the economy of the 90's was all or even mostly dot com bubble, do you?

Remember most of the dot coms turned into dot bombs because they never produced anything, and more specifically a never a profit.

If 22 milion new jobs came out of dot coms, why are 19 million of them still left?

As glamorous and the dot coms were, they never represented a significant part of the economy. The growth of the 90's can most readily be attributed to raising the minimum wage and keeping interest rates low.

These can be repeated.

[bbmykel]

3. I disagree

Dean has gotten as far as he has because he projects that he takes principaled stands. Repealing only a part of Bush's tax cuts is pandering pure and simple. Pandering IMO is what has gotten the Dems where they are today -- in control of no branches of government. If Dean starts to pander, he will turn off the very supporters who got him where he is now.

Also, for symbolism alone, I think the entire pieces of legislation should be thrown out. Middle class tax cuts can always be revisted once the US is on the road to fiscal health.

Mike

[quaker bill]

6. I agree

No pandering, suck it up and pay some taxes.

[quaker bill]

7. Wrong

Large deficits are not humane. They raise interest rates and keep low income folks from being able to buy a home or car.

Pandering is always more palatable, that is it's purpose.

Integrity demands that you pay as you go. I am all for progressive taxes. But Dean is right, the middle class tax cut is a myth, local governments have had to raise tuition, taxes and other fees to cover the loss of federal money. The rare exception aside, most folks lost money on this deal.

[onebigbadwulf]

8. How does it not go well with the public?

Most people would rather pay Clinton's taxes to return to the Clinton economy.

That's about all there is to it.

[T Roosevelt]

9. And now...for the rest of the story

Dean has said that not only would he repeal the * tax cuts, but that he would also rework the tax code to make it fairer to the middle class, and simplify it as well.

As we saw in the 90s, small deficits (leading to a balanced budget) are probably the only fiscally responsible way to achieve growth (the dot.com bubble notwithstanding). It makes money cheaper for people who need it, and more readily available for people that will spend it.

The bottom line is that everybody is probably saying the same thing (lower taxes for the middle class)...everything else is just implementation.

[MGKrebs]

10. I think it will sell by itself just fine. But,

if it looks like a problem, if he could show that restoring money/services to states would lower property and/or sales taxes and fees, it'll fly.

I'm pretty sure that whatever tax cut applies to me has been more than swallowed by increased property taxes.

As I write this, I realize that property and sales taxes are almost never reduced. So perhaps a better plan would be to focus on reducing health care costs.

[Hep]

11. Get real!

We don't need Bush's tax cut to have good tax policy and real reform. All you address is this big TAX CUT monster. You don't show any indication that you've read or understood Dean's specific tax policy. Tell me how his specific tax plans are a recipe for disaster if you can. Juxtapose them with Clark's since he's your man, and explain why your guy's plan is better. But don't pull this big umbrella topic out and address it as if its that simple or black and white. It makes for flame wars.

[bluestateguy]

12. People's brains just shut down when it comes to taxes

The Bush Team will have 200 million to play with and it will be used for demagogue ads with pathetic looking people, gloomy music in the background as an announcer broods, "This family will have to pay $1500 A YEAR MORE IN TAXES". This will allow the Bush Team to bypass the issue that needs to be seriously debated: the fact that the tax cut has been a huge giveaway for the rich. If we just call for repeal of the tax cuts for the rich, we force Team Bush to defend the tax cuts for the rich. Calling for total repeal allows the Bush Team to position themselves as the protectors of the middle class against big taxing Democrats.

[Hep]

14. I vehemently disagree

I'm not prepared to sell the people so short on this issue. Dean has the perfect defense. A TAX POLICY. In really simple terms like, "You probably won't have to fill out tax forms anymore" while offering things like HEALTHCARE. Anyone who is seriously on the fence about this issue knows that no one is going to forsake the largest voting base.

What I have trouble with is the tendency for this website to mirror the mainstream media. Every day, about all of the candidates, I read all these posts rehashing juvenile, oversimplified, buzz word issues with either fake objectivity and concern or outright malice.

The big question regarding your post: Do you really think that there is some way to prevent Bush from throwing out some misleading, inflammatory BS about whoever wins the nomination?

[andym]

13. If, Dean is going to reform the tax code

If Dean is going to reform the tax code to make it more
progressive, he has to put it like this:

"I am going to get rid of GW Bush's tax cut, then I'm going to give
you the middle class a bigger tax cut by reforming the code
and making corporations pay more and I'll give you Universal health care."

Is this true? Can he say it? If so, he'll do well!