Dean, Gephardt abandoning Bill Clinton's Economic Legacy

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/clips/news_2003_0917.html

Commentary: Dean, Gephardt abandoning Bill Clinton’s economic legacy

September  17,  2003
The Manchester Union-Leader

by Senator John Kerry

TWELVE YEARS ago, Gov. Bill Clinton announced his candidacy for President with a pledge to “fight for the forgotten middle class.” He called for a tax cut for middle class families, cutting the deficit in half in four years, and restoring investment in jobs, the skills of our workers, and economic growth.

Clinton economics worked — nearly 40 million hard-working families got a tax cut, we created 23 million new jobs and witnessed record high family incomes and the fastest real wage growth in more than 30 years.

With George W. Bush in the White House, the middle class has been forgotten all over again. More than three million jobs lost, retirement and college savings gone in a flash, investment in skills and training plummeting. In the last years the cost of the average home for families with children has grown 70 times faster than average incomes.

In November of 2004, Democrats need to offer America’s middle class a clear choice: jobs or no jobs, making health care more affordable or continuing skyrocketing costs, a return to fiscal discipline or more fiscal insanity, tax relief for middle class families or tax loopholes for corporate special interests.

George W. Bush stands in the way — but so does a debate within our party.

Before all of America votes, we Democrats are going to have to make our own choice: are we going to imitate George W. Bush in forgetting the middle class or are we going to be the party that fights for the middle class? Will we turn our back on the progress of the Clinton years or will we follow his lead in assuring middle class voters that Democrats will defend their interests and honor their values?

That’s why I am so concerned that some of my fellow Democratic candidates for President, most prominently former Gov. Howard Dean and U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt, have adopted policies in the course of this campaign that — in effect — turn their back on both the Clinton economic legacy and the very middle class families the Democratic Party has historically defended.

I believe we should repeal President Bush’s special tax breaks that go to the wealthy. I believe we should end corporate welfare as we know it and tax giveaways to special interests. But I do not believe we should abolish tax cuts for middle class families — whether it’s the child tax credit or the elimination of the marriage penalty. In fact, I believe we should give middle class families a tax cut, not a tax increase.

With George Bush in the White House, middle class families can’t catch a break. For all of this President’s talk about tax cuts, the lion’s share of working families — those earning between $40,000 and $90,000 a year — have seen their share of the tax burden go up, not down. The Democratic Party needs to stand up for these families in their struggle to make ends meet and get ahead.

However, repealing all the tax cuts for the middle class, which some Democrats want to do, would mean that a family of four, with two parents working hard on the job and at home, would have to pay about $2,000 more a year in taxes. That’s bad economics; and it’s a violation of fundamental fairness.

Gov. Dean and others have vowed to repeal these middle class tax cuts Democrats fought to pass, because of a commitment to balance the budget in four years. However, as Bill Clinton pointed out in 1992 under similar circumstances, the budget deficit is not the only deficit we face. America has been suffering under an investment deficit, a jobs deficit, a fairness deficit; and all of these deficits would be made worse by a breakneck rush to raise the tax burden on struggling middle class families.

Our party should put substance ahead of sound bites. We should cut the budget deficit in half in four years while keeping tax cuts for middle class families and eliminating them for the very wealthy and special interests. We do not need to offer Americans a false choice between health care for all and middle class tax cuts — a responsible health care plan can bring down health care costs for all Americans, cover the uninsured, and still protect middle class tax fairness.

In 1992, Democrats had the strength and courage to stand up to the pressure to turn their backs on the middle class, to trade middle class fairness for quick and easy sound bites. Now our party is being tested again. It is time again to honor the middle class families our party at its best has championed and defended.





 

[robbedvoter]

1. Gephardt was opposing Clinton at the time on many things

(more than he opposed W lately).
I will also add that Clark has the same tax cut reduction policy as Kerry: only the ones for the rich should be repealed.

[joeybee12]

3. More desperation from Kerry!

I dislike him more every day --don't get me wrong, if he somehow resurrects himself and gets the nomination, I will certainly vote, and probably campaign for him--but such a long-winded "paper" that really says nothing, doesn't do it. He's a follower, not a leader.

Feel the anger John! That's where the wave of the Dem party is going!

[LuminousX]

30. He used to be a leader

But I think he is too risk-averse to lead in chaotic times.

His campaign isn't resonating. That's my talking point and meme regarding the Kerry campaign today.

[Fabio]

33. I agree with the premise

that his campaign is being run too risk averse. Many of us who have seen the candidate/know him are having a hard time with the disconnect of the man and the campaign effort thus far. In the flesh and on policy, he has never been better -- but it doesnt seem to be getting out.

From a voter's prospective, it's been hard to define what the campaign is all about. That needs to change.

[BrewCrew]

22. evidence

The evidence proves otherwise my friend. Besides trade policy and maybe some other issues here and there, Gephardt supported Clinton a helluva a lot more than he's ever supported W. Gep was Clinton's Minority Leader for Christ sake.

Back statements like that up with some facts as I am about to do with a report from CQ. I don't mind people making a point about a candidate but generalizations like that have no place amongst an educated crowd like DU.

Congressional CQ Voting Studies, President Support by Congressman Gephardt

Year %Supported(Administration's legislation) %Opposed
2002 33 67
2001 29 71
2000 (Bill) 83 17
1999 88 12
1998 82 18
1997 76 24
1996 82 18
1995 85 15
1994 91 9
1993 91 9

[papau]

2. Kerry is my first choice! Excellent letter.

But ABB is the game - and while I hope he wins the primaries, I will wait to see how well he "markets" himself!

[Jim Sagle]

4. Kerry has a point about Dean - but he's wrong about Gep.

[KaraokeKarlton]

7. No he doesn't

Dean has been talking about tax reform that is more fair so that the middle class doesn't carry to burden of the wealthy tax evasion tactics. Anyone who thinks we can afford any of the Bush tax cuts at all is in denial. I'd sure as hell rather fund schools, have insurance for everyone and fund first responders and homeland security on a state level than have a tax cut. Some things are more important. There is a time and place for tax cuts, and this isn't it.

[Fabio]

10. With all due respect....

What economic theory are you basing this on? According to what I learned at college and business school, the federal government has three main appartus to change the economic environment in this country.

1) Regulatory changes: the most subtle -- but changes to say environmental regulation, CEO compensation, SEC funding, expensing of stock options -- can change the business environment for better or worse.

2) Spending: The government can choose to spend more or less. The government spending more will increase economic activiy, spending less does the opposite.

3) Taxation: Increased taxation keeps money out of circulation, and therefore decreases activity. Reduced taxation puts more money in consumers pockets and increases activity.

The argument against Bush's tax cuts has NEVER been that tax cuts do not provide stimulus to the economy. It has been about balance and fairness. The cuts are weighted heavily to upper income wage earners who are supposed to spend and have the positive effect trickle down to the masses. It's fairly dubious/inefficient given that the savings rate is higher among rich people, that rich people also tend to buy alot of foreign goods, etc.

Dean has recently begun to mention tax reform, but only after 12 months of being a deficit hawk and screaming about total rollback. I think it is disengenious of him to claim that keeping the middle class tax cuts (marriage penalty, childcare credit, lowering of marginal rates) is Bushlite, but tax reform, under some other label, is a.o.k. Eliminating the marriage penalty, and giving a childcare credit are great examples of tax reform.

I also think it shows a naive understanding of how Washington works: while there is a chance to roll back upper income taxes in our current political climate -- rolling the entire tax break back, then installing new tax "reform" for middle income americans is a difficult proposition -- especially in a relevant time frame to provide relief while our country is in need of stimulus AND in a republican controlled congress.

That's why I am proud that Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Joe Biden have proposed an amendment to the $87 billion Iraq spending bill that ties the release of these funds to an immediate roll back of the upper income tax relief. That is being both fair and intelligent about politics IMHO.

[KaraokeKarlton]

12. Rolling back all those taxes are the right thing to do

And from there, Dean wants to tackle tax reform. He also isn't being funded by big business and special interest groups. Dean is owned by the people.

Dean also believes you don't spend at a higher rate than the rate of growth. He's excellent on economic and budget issues. I have to go to work in a few minutes so I don't have time to say much else at the moment. I'll try to find some sources later tonight if I have time.

[Fabio]

14. Just a quick response:

Who is being funded by big business and special interest? (besides Bush). It is unclear whether Dean has been funded by these groups in the past, but totally clear the my candidate (JK) has never accepted PAC or soft money for his campaigns.

Talk later>

[blm]

29. Increasing or rolling back equally is GOP tax politics.

Progressive taxation is a Democratic staple.

You don't balance budgets on the back of the poor and working class.

[Nicholas_J]

39. What Dean supporters avoid

Is the fact that ther isan enormous deficit, and repealing the cuts alone will not result in a balanced budget. Another thing they avoid, is the fact that a repeal of the Bush tax cuts results in an increase in overall taxation, as the states are also in deficit, and people are paying higher taxes at the state levels now, and repealing the tax cuts will have an even more bursen some effect on them.

Families who received a 2000 dollar tax break, but saw a 3000 increase in their local taxes have a buffer of 2000 dollars against those raised state taxes, ended up with an increased tax burden of 1000 dollars. Repealing the Bush tax cuts would then take away that buffer, increasing that families total tax burden to 5000 dollars, instead of the 1000 total burden that resulted from the federal tax offset to local tax increases.

The misrepresentation of the Bush tax cuts by stating that the middle class did not receive anything is more smoke and mirrors. The result of the Bush tax cuts causing higher local taxes was bad enough. Repealing the Bush tax cuts while the local increases are still in place would be simply catastophic.

[Larkspur]

5. As a middle class person who has not gotten my taxes cut, this anti-Dean

argument is bogus.

What this argument ignores is that most middle class people have had the taxes RAISED under Bush because in order to make up for the tax cuts that favor the upper 1% heavily, states and towns have had to raise their taxes beyond what most middle class people, who are getting a paltry tax cut, are getting in federal tax "relief."

Dean favors the tax rates that were in place when Clinton left office. Most Americans did NOT want tax cuts because they wanted Social Security, Medicare, public education, saved.

[Egnever]

6. OMG

All i can say is thank god clark got in this race so kerry will finnally be shoved back to the 1% er he is.

I cant believe this fool Just keeps digging himself deeper.

For the love of god John its not about Dean or gehp its about you vs bush. Wake the fuck up allready!

[ProfessorPlum]

8. Yeah, I don't get it

If Dean gets rid of Bush's tax cuts and takes us to pre-Bush (ie Clintonian) tax rates, then how is that abandoning Clinton's tax rate legacy?

I'm in the middle class, and I would gladly give up any tax cuts I've gotten under Bush if the money started going to make this society better.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. It's not. That's what's so damn funny about this letter.

Returning to Clinton's tax structure= abandoning Clinton's tax structure.


:wtf:

[ProfessorPlum]

18. I didn't even notice that it was written by Kerry

from the crappy logic, I thought it was just some hack in NH. What's Kerry smoking?

[MrPeepers]

40. Nothing,

the point is to continue the idea of Clinton's economic policy. The situation is, thanks to a certain President from Texas who's name starts with G and ends with eorge W. Bush, quite different from what it was under Clinton. Consequently, we can't treat the economy as if it was healthy. A different tool for a different job.

Peepers

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. How was the economy doing when BC came into office?

[Fabio]

20. That response

seems to hold water -- that Dean is advocating a return to clintonian rates -- but I would respectfully disagree. Senator Kerry is arguing that Clinton's legacy was too focus on helping the middle class. To provide stimilus to the economy, the federal government needs to create a change in either spending, revenue or regulation -- see my above post. If we maintained the Clintonian tax rates, we would not be providing stimulus. We would be maintaining status quo - for better or worse.

Meanwhile, I would like to note that the best form of stimulus for the economy (ie the most fair and progressive) was suggested by Senator Kerry last year in his economic speech in Cleveland -- in that speech he proposed giving a payroll tax holiday on the first $10,000 of income -- meaning that all americans with an income above $10k would get the same immediate tax relief, those under $10k would get a prorata share.

Here's the link:
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2002_1203.html

Here's the quote:
First, we should give every working American some tax relief now. I propose a payroll tax holiday on the first $10,000 of income. Every worker in America would immediately receive a $765 tax cut and every two-income family would get a cut of $1,530. Money to help families pay for new school clothes, put a down payment on a new car, or save for the future.

Unfortunately, others in the senate didn't see it that way and it never made it into the bill.

[ProfessorPlum]

23. Oh I absolutely think that if there is money to be given away

in order to stimulate spending, it should go to the poor and middle class. That's just common sense, and humane.

There is also the consideration that the government needs to remain viable, and therefore solvent, in order to continue to protect its citizens against foreign threats and corporate wrongdoing, and to keep it's debt load down.

Stimulating the economy and keeping the government solvent are both important concerns, but sometimes one needs to be attended to with more urgency than another. Bush has already somewhat hindered our ability to stimulate with cash at hand, having given much of it unproductively to the rich. I think Dean's concern at the moment is keeping the government economically viable (Grover Norquist wants the federal government so weak and impoverished that it can be "drowned in a bathtub), and I tend to agree that that is a bigger worry for me as well right now.

But that's a policy difference - I don't think it is quite right to paint Dean as not caring about the middle class just because he doesn't want to lose more money that we desperately need and can't afford. Creating budget surpluses and reducing the debt were also part of the Clinton's legacy.

[Fabio]

26. In response...

See, I see it differently. But let me first say this:

1) I do think the deficit is a problem, but I also think that there is a place for deficit spending in the federal government. I think most economists would agree that spending in deficit is ok when you are in economic pain. The most important thing here is too stabilize revenue and reign in spending.

2) I also agree that GOPers (the meaner ones) are trying to strangle federal programs into oblivion.

However, I think it is pretty obvious that you can get the country back on track to fiscal sanity while maintaining a favorable climate for the poor and middle class. 80% of the dollars generated by the bush tax cuts go to the wealthiest americans. I disagree with Dean's stated goal of eliminating the deficit in 4 years as unmanageable. I'd prefer deficit reduction that is 80% of Deans, but decreases the gap between rich and poor in this country. IMHO, Dean has also painted himself into a box by saying he wouldn't lower defense spending -- the major disbursement of federal funds -- because it was politically necessary for him so as to appear strong on defense.

Finally, I still think there is a disconnect between Dean saying we cant afford tax any bush tax cuts, but him seeing tax reform on the horizon.

As a trained economist, I prefer at least a permutation of the plan Sen. Kerry has put forward which includes:

1) Roll back of upper income tax relief -- now, in an amendment by Sen. Kerry and Biden, specifically tied to the $87 billion appropriations request for Iraq. I think this makes it politically actionable/viable.
2) A $30 billion state aid package to keep any tax relief from being offset down the food chain.
3) Closing of corporate wealthfare and tax loopholes to offset state aid package (roughly $20 of $30 billion).
4) A universal health care initiative (much like deans, too) that equates to a tax break for small business and individuals by lowering the cost of healthcare. It is estimated to be about a $1000 saving to each american.

The above plan would AT LEAST half the deficit in four years, using very pessimistic assumptions about future growth and increased funding needs because of our commitment to Iraq (something Bush had left out in all his previous forecasts).

[ProfessorPlum]

27. You are no doubt absolutely right

and what eventually comes may be exactly that.

Dean, I think, is using "repeal the Bush tax cuts" as a way of pointing out that a) Bush's tax cuts are a generally evil thing and b) a way of doing it quickly.

You get into the kind of discussion you are having on the stump, and people's heads start drooping and their tongues roll out of their mouths.

"Repeal Bush's tax cuts" is a campaign shorthand, an easily remembered meme for getting back to a tax level we had before Bush's great giveaway to the rich, and a good goal which everyone can remember. God only knows what he actually may have to do to both stimulate the economy and start reigning in the hemorrhaging of federal funds. But the bottom line is repealing Bush's tax cuts is in itself a worthy goal, whether he adds additional tax relief to the middle class on top of that or not.

[Fabio]

28. ..crickets...crickets...

Okay...so we basically of agree. At the least we agree on the economic principles, and I am willing to agree that JKs plan doesn't make for great copy -- its detail oriented. Much like the candidate himself.

For me, and a peak at the polls would indicate that I am not in the majority of Dems right now, JK's attention to detail in policy is one of my favorite points about his campaign. They contain good solid logic, but dont sell as well as headliners. To that end, it was interesting for me to see that Gallup poll released today. Obviously, the sum total was a boon for Dean, but something caught my eye that gave me comfort -- that those who follow politics closely favor Kerry.

Here's the link:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030915.asp

Anyhow, I think JK has the right idea, and I do think that balancing the budget will ultimately be politically unviable in the next four years (absent a massive recovery). That's why I get irked by Dean's plan.

[ProfessorPlum]

35. Yeah

and by the way I think Kerry is a great candidate and would make a good president. I'm also a bit of a policy hound and appreciate attention to detail.

But I do have a soft spot in my heart for a great campaigner.

[liberalnurse]

9. Nice try but this post just can't sell Kerry.

If there was objective reasoning expressed in discussion form, pro-con's on the statement, it might get more attention. It looks like flame bait by one who lacks insight to the issues.

[liberalnurse]

11. See, I'm right....

This poster just is one of those "Hit-n-Run" posters. No engagement of discussion. Weak and impotent.

[Fabio]

17. Well, I am here and willing to discuss

How is it flamebait?
What are your concerns with the piece?
Let's start basic: Is the economy in better or worse shape than in 1992?

[chaumont58]

13. Manchester Union Leader? Isn't this the right wing rag....

that makes the Moonie Times look positively pinko? Shouldn't be hard to get space in this paper(sic?) to bash another Dem.

[Nicholas_J]

31. Nope

If it is, then ALL of the positive articles they have published about
Dena MUST be right wing propaganda in Deans favor.

[hey2370]

16. This whole argument is disingenuous

The President does not have the power to raise or lower taxes. The Congress will decide this issue.

President Dean/Clark/Kerry/Gephardt could talk about this all day long, but Tom Delay can tell any and all of them to go pound sand.

This is what Krugman is talking about when he talks about the dangers we face as a nation because of the intransigence of the Republicans.

[Fabio]

21. See bottom of post #10

There is a plan to get them rolled back using today political climate. And if it doesn't work, it sure makes republicans look pretty bad.

[dave29]

19. Dean wants taxes back at where Clinton had them

this has been his selling point

:wtf:

[DJcairo]

24. Indeed...but tax policy is not something you just play with

It's more complicated then that because people do long term planning based on current tax policy. So - if, as an example you are talking the estate tax or the marriage penalty a sudden change back to an older policy could be extremely costly. It's not simply the tax, its the fact that people spend money and planning for their financial future so if these things are changed to quickly it hurts millions of families. Also, the current economy is quite a bit different than when Clinton became President. Kerry does not think you can achieve economic growth by suddenyl raising middle class tax rates and most economists would agree with him. It would inittially be a depressant on the economy as the people most likely to spend their tax cuts dollars suddenyl see more being taken out of their checks. A middle class tax raise is, in essence, politically impossible.

[sandnsea]

25. Clinton's taxes

We had a couple of tax packages in the 90's and alot of compromise with Republicans to get them. Just saying go back to the 2000 tax rate isn't necessarily going back to Clinton's preferred tax policy. It's going back to the one Clinton got through Congress. And Clinton's tax policy was alot more than raise taxes and pay for social services. It was alot about how to give tax cuts and encourage spending in a way that encourages people to make choices, like getting an education, and encourages businesses to invest in a certain way. Since the economy has changed since 2000, it seems to me Clinton would have changed his tax plan too. Putting money in the hands of working Americans definitely helps the economy and Democrats worked hard to get them. Consumer spending was one of the bright spots for a while. The true middle class tax cuts undoubtedly helped. The rest of Bush's tax plan has clearly not worked. Keep the good, throw the rest.

And what is really funny about the Dean/Gephardt tax repeal - health plan is that Gephardt's is better. Single people complain they didn't really get any benefit from the tax cut. Well, they're not going to get any benefit from Dean's health plan either. So single Deanies are in essence saying, raise my taxes and help families even more. I could swear they've been complaining about families getting all the tax cuts to begin with. At least Gephardt's plan would include everybody.

Still, John Kerry's plan is the right plan. It doesn't take money out of the economy causing further loss of jobs. It doesn't burden people with a tax increase after they've already been hit with local tax increases. The health care plan is designed to cut costs, help small businesses and their employees, help the unemployed, cover every child, and let anybody else buy in with a tax credit for low income workers. It isn't just a plan to give people Medicaid, it's a plan that addresses health care problems across the board.

Why anybody would take a tax increase and Medicaid when they could keep their tax cut and have real health care solutions and quality coverage is beyond me.

[dsc]

36. That is flat our false

The vast overwhelming majority of changes in the tax rates under Clinton were passed in 93 without any, as in not one, Republican vote. There were a few changes in 98 or 99 but not much. And I think, Kerry argeed with those at the time. You are just telling stories you like here.

[Nicholas_J]

38. Thats if it actually gets done

Dean spent 10 years promising universal health care, from 1992, he was asking for legislation to mandate universal care in Vermont, but when the multi payer plan he wanted failed to get passed, he threatened to veto the sngle payer plan that the legislature was putting together, so universal health care was dean in the water in Vermont by 1994).Deans polling in 2000 looked very bad, due to the reaction to civil unions and the fact that his "incrementalism" ideas about health care provided care for more children, but he incremented a lot of adults who were elegible for medicaid and other state benefits out of those benefits. As a result, in 2000, Dena makes a campaign promise to provide universale health care for every citizen of Vermont by 2002. As soon as he wins the election (narrowly, almost not getting the 50 percent of the vote the state requires), Dean begins pulling away from the promises, and by 2002, he is sending budgets to the Vermont legislature recommending MORE cuts in services and increases in the co-payments of those who receive services to the state legislature, who finally, having had enough of Deans continually attempts to cut government services. ove-ride Dean, and place funding back into the budget to pay for the plans slated for Deans ax.

Dena has promised more, and delivered less of his promises than any of the other candidates. The one thing you can expect to NOT see if Dena gets elected, and repeals the Bush tax cuts, is universal health insurance, as he will always put balancing the budget first. He has stated several times that he either wanted to cut medicare spending, and later, that he wanted to stop increases to medicare spending, which, since the baby boomers are about to retire, amounts to cutting benefits. You cant freeze spending, while having more and more people elgible for the services without somethiing giving somewhere. In most cases with fiscal conservatives, the give tends to come at the expense of the public receiving the services.

[indigo32]

32. I thought I heard

that the next debate will focus on economic policy. Should be an interesting one. I don't consider myself particularly knowledgable on tax policy... but I do think that the whole concept of the richest of the rich getting a tax break being some kind of stimulus is laughable. But overall it makes sense that tax breaks can stimulate. It's all a balancing act I suppose.

[killbotfactory]

34. Thanks for supporting a useless war that's costing us billions of dollars

...you pathetic jackass

[dsc]

37. What a crock of crap

First, While Clinton campaigned on middle class tax cuts he didn't deliver any. His tax cuts were in the EIC which is for the poor.

Second, Gephardt and Dean wish to restore taxation to the levels Clinton set them at with one exception (so far) for each candidate. Gephardt would institute a tax credit to pay for insurance and Dean would eliminate the cap on SS taxes. Dean's change is progressive while I don't know what the effect of Gephardt's would be.

[corgigrrl]

41. This is exactly why some of us are actually beginning to hate John Kerry

This is "TOP NEWS" at John Kerry's site, a man who voted AGAINST GWB's tax cuts and now takes pot shots at the candidates who are honest enough to say they need to be repealed. Seems to me the candidates who want to return to Clinton's tax structure are the ones being truer to Clinton.

The GAO came to the hill today to say that the budget situation is a long term disaster and NO ONE -- not Senate House or President is waging any serious attempt to curb spending or increase revenues to bring some fiscal sanity to this country. Howard Dean is honest enough to say, you know what folks, you can't have it all. You want a tax cut or do you want to put some money back into public services and restore our economy?

If this is John Kerry's "leadership" and what he feels differentiates him from the other candidates, he can have it -- people are sick of this kind of politics. I used to admire this man but every day now he takes his eyes OFF the prize. While he was doing this, Dean was hammering on the ridiculous lies of the administration about 9/11-Al Queda. That's where we have to keep hitting, not at each other.

[polpilot]

42. Whining warmonger unable to fulfill promises to ketchup princess!!!!

'In bed with Bush' vote on Iraqi Bombing Resolution' end dreams of Air Force 1 privileges.

Dean '04...