Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Tax-Cutting Democrat -- Bill Richardson's New Mexico record.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-03-07 03:08 PM
Original message
A Tax-Cutting Democrat -- Bill Richardson's New Mexico record.
by Jennifer Rubin
03/05/2007, Volume 012, Issue 24


In July 2006 the Wall Street Journal touted New Mexico's governor Bill Richardson as a man who "embraced tax cutting and benefited politically." The Journal quoted Richardson approvingly for advising his party that "we have to be the party of growth and the American dream, not the party of redistribution." Which party is Richardson talking about? The Democrats.

Indeed, the former U.N. ambassador and secretary of energy stands out as the only Democratic presidential candidate who has successfully enacted tax cuts and other pro-growth economic policies. When asked about the importance of tax cuts, Richardson says: "Cutting taxes and creating tax credits can be essential to creating jobs and a strong economy." One of his first measures after he was elected governor in 2002 was to cut New Mexico's top income tax rate from 8.2 percent to 4.9 percent over five years. "This was our way of declaring to the world that New Mexico is open for business," Richardson told the Journal in 2005. Echoing what conservatives have been saying for decades, he explained: "After all, businesses move to states where taxes are falling, not rising." At the midpoint of his first term, Richardson earned a "B" rating on the CATO Institute's 2004 Fiscal Report Card on America's Governors. Two years later, CATO explained the rating this way: "His income tax cuts were indeed substantial. The top marginal income tax rate has dropped a remarkable 35 percent as a result of Richardson's actions and is still the largest income tax rate cut in the nation over the past few years."

Richardson seems to relish his tax-cutting image. Reacting to a four-star rating for his pro-growth policies from Inc. magazine in October 2006, Richardson boasted in a press release: "New Mexico is a national leader in job growth, we have invested in better schools and improved access to health care and--most importantly for the business community--we have cut taxes year after year." In his 2007 state of the state address, Richardson continued to advertise his tax cutting credentials, declaring that New Mexico was a state "where tax rates go down, while salaries go up." Most recently, at the winter meeting of the Democratic National Committee, Richardson reminded his audience that he "first passed a specific tax credit for creating good paying jobs" and was responsible for a host of other tax cuts and credits that helped "local companies that showed great promise for success and job creation."

As advertised, Richardson's list of pro-growth measures did include a 10-percent tax credit on wages and benefits attached to each new job paying more than $40,000. As a result, high-skilled manufacturing work rose steadily in New Mexico, as did real wages--on average 2.4 percent a year between 2003 and 2006. Albuquerque, with an unemployment rate of just 4.9 percent, won first place on the 2006 Forbes Best Places for Business and Careers list.

Despite these accomplishments and his consistent pro-growth rhetoric, some observers paint a slightly less rosy picture of Richardson's economic record. Anti-tax advocates have complained that although Richardson did yeoman's work in cutting rates, he more than made up for these cuts with tax increases on everything from cigarettes to fuel and a complicated, Dickensian, and later repealed surcharge on nursing home beds--all totaling a net tax increase of roughly $174 million through fiscal year 2006, according to the conservative Americans for Tax Reform.

In fact, by the end of his first term in 2006, CATO had dropped Richardson's grade to a "C." CATO's experts commented that Richardson's "budget proposals have grown faster each year, and the general fund budgets he signed into law between fiscal 2004 and 2006 have grown in total by a whopping 23 percent--almost five percentage points faster than population and inflation." Richardson's spending increases averaged 7 percent per year until he appeared to abandon fiscal discipline altogether with a proposed 11 percent spending increase for 2007. Such spending increases include, according to Americans for Tax Reform, a 7.4 percent increase in teachers' salaries, a 9.1 percent increase in other education spending, and a whopping 18.4 percent increase in health care assistance. Projects such as a $400 million commuter rail project, which Paul Gessing of the Rio Grande Foundation calls a "boondoggle" serving relatively few people at great cost, have also raised the ire of fiscal conservatives.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Richardson argues that this additional spending went to needed infrastructure and education improvements, and that he maintained a prudent surplus to prevent future liabilities. Defending his spending levels, Richardson says, "My budget plan reflects my vision for the state: Investing in priorities like quality teachers in the classroom, access to health care, and putting money in the pockets of working families. At the same time, I am proposing a fiscally responsible budget, leaving more than $560 million, or 10 percent of recurring appropriations, in reserve." Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist jokes that Richardson at least deserves "credit" for recognizing what few Democrats do: "Reduce the rates and then spend the money that comes in!"

more: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/333khsla.asp?pg=2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-03-07 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. Outrageous!
Higher pay for teachers, increased education and health care funding, public transportation initiatives!!! Why does he hate America?????
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-03-07 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. He's crazy wild out of control! What'll he do next? Sign a minimum wage increase for his state?
Will Bill Richardson Lead on Wages?

The most important fight in the national movement to restore our minimum wage is playing out this week. But it's not taking place in Washington. Instead, the show down is in New Mexico and the outcome depends on Governor Bill Richardson, a recently declared Democratic Presidential candidate.

While Congress is poised to approve the first federal minimum wage increase since 1997, the real battle for a meaningful minimum wage is being fought in the states . . . http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-sonn/will-bill-richardson-lead_b_42382.html


03/02/2007 8:47:04 AM
By: Associated Press

SANTA FE (AP) - The House has passed a bill to raise New Mexico’s minimum wage from the federal minimum of $5.15 an hour to $6.50 an hour in July and $7.50 an hour next January.

The bill goes back to the Senate, which passed a different version.

The two houses would have to agree on the legislation before it could reach Governor Richardson’s desk.

He’s asked lawmakers to raise the minimum wage in the session that ends March 17.

The House bill passed includes cost-of-living increases to the minimum wage.

It would not affect Santa Fe and Albuquerque’s higher minimum wages. It also wouldn’t prevent cities or counties from enacting higher minimum wages.

http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=storyviewer&id=30773&cat=NMTOPSTORIES
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OffWithTheirHeads Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-03-07 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. He is helping the insurgents!
OH NO!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seasat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-03-07 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
4. Why do they always paint tax cuts as not liberal?
Tax cuts, especially those that affect the poor and middle class, are Keynesian in nature. The vast majority of Democrats support these type of cuts if they are fiscally responsible. The Weakly Standard (yes that spelling was intentional) left off some of Richards other tax cuts that aided lower income folks. Heck, we wouldn't have a 10% federal bracket if it wasn't for Democrats in congress.

In 2005 Richardson signed a bill with exemptions for low income families, a back to school sales tax holiday, and a one time credit to offset increases in energy costs for low income families. He also repealed a sales tax on groceries (LINK PDF File). I believe that our other candidates have also supported tax cuts that affect the middle to lower classes.

I think I've seen where Richardson, like the other Democrats, would raise federal taxes that affect the wealthy to balance the budget. Most Democrats realize that the supply side theory is bunk. Economic studies show that there are few disincentives based on taxes until the effective tax rate is higher than 50%. We have never had a rate that was actually that high in the past 50 years (It probably has never actually been that high even further back in the past either but I'm too lazy to go back and look up the tables).

The Democratic candidates and us supporters need to make it known that we support and are primarily responsible for lower and middle income tax cuts if they are fiscally responsible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-03-07 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. this conservative account actually does try to distinguish between his tax cuts
Edited on Sat Mar-03-07 05:17 PM by bigtree
and a conservative style cut.

You make a very good point. Our goal is to invest in the average Americans and their future, conservatives focus on giving business and industry breaks promising they'll trickle down on us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-03-07 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. do you know where he stands on rescinding the Bush tax cuts
for the wealthy? (or at least not renewing them)?

I'm curious to know his position on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-03-07 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. here some anecdotal evidence that he does oppose Bush's giveaways
from his site: http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/issues/#jobs

"We need to work with business, that's where the jobs are created after all, instead of engaging in ideological warfare, and we need the right kind of tax incentives, not just tax cuts for the wealthy and income transfers from the middle class to big corporations."

from 2001:

Richardson: "I like the Democratic tax plan, which is a third for tax cuts, a third for urgent domestic spending and third for long-term debt."

{snip}

Richardson: "Forty-three percent of the Bush tax cut benefits those that make over $319,000 per year. That's the top 1 percent that in the last 20 years, their incomes have shot up 115 percent. Now, doesn't it make sense, as the congressman has said, to have a tax cut for working families. You know...

SHADEGG: This is tax cut for working families.

RICHARDSON: But congressman, if you look...

SHADEGG: That's precisely what the president is offering.

RICHARDSON: Congressman, just wait a second. That waitress in the Bush address on Saturday that made $25,000 a year, the president said this is going to benefit her. Today, the Center for Budget Priorities said that waitress in the Bush tax cut will make $100.

Now, Donald Trump will make a huge tax dividend, but I think the Democratic plan, which is more responsible than the compassionate conservative plan that saves money for debt reduction, for potential defense cost and prescription drugs . . .

more: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0102/07/cf.00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-03-07 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC