You should back up that claim with factual posts rather than opinions or Dean campaign information. It was Kerry who wrote the legisltion that created KidCare which allowed Vermont to expand its insurance for chiildren, but it became bi-partisan so that the Republicans could tone down Kerrys very high fiscal support to the states from the federal government. Kerrys plan had the federal government pay for 75 percent of the cost of health care for children, WHen the bill went from Kerry/Kennedy to Kerry Hatch, the republicans knocked that down to 60 percent federal pick up this article is a conservative article criticising the Kerry version:
Issue Analysis 51 - Top Twelve False Claims Made About the Hatch-Kennedy Children's Health Coverage Bill
7. "The fact is that this bill is a far cry from the Kennedy-Kerry bill<.>"9
Hatch-Kennedy is nearly identical to its predecessor, the Kennedy-Kerry bill (S. 2186), introduced in the 104th Congress. Despite minor changes, both bills would create a new entitlement, empower government to buy insurance policies on behalf of children, require new taxes, encourage employers to drop coverage, and impose unfunded financial burdens on the states.
In fact, Hatch-Kennedy imposes greater unfunded financial burdens on states than Kennedy-Kerry. Kennedy-Kerry would have made states responsible for only 25 percent of administrative costs (S. 2186; p.8, lines 1-4, and p.22, lines 16-19). Hatch-Kennedy requires states to contribute 50 percent of administrative costs, 40 percent of their Medicaid contribution and at least 10 percent of the total program costs at all times (p. 16, lines 20-25; p. 17, lines 1-12).
http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_template.php/473.htmThis is the DLC party platform regarding fiscal responsibility:
We believe that fiscal discipline is fundamental to sustained economic growth as well as responsible government.
We believe that a progressive tax system is the only fair way to pay for government.
We believe the Democratic Party's mission is to expand opportunity, not government.
http://www.ndol.org/print.cfm?contentid=1926When the attempt to institute a progressive system of taxation was called for in order to balcnce the budget in Vermont in 2002 Howard Deans response was:
Progressives call for higher taxes for rich
January 25, 2002
By JACK HOFFMAN
Vermont Press Bureau
MONTPELIER — Vermont Progressives renewed their call Thursday for higher taxes on the wealthy in order to avoid some of the budget cuts that Gov. Howard Dean outlined earlier this week.
The Progressives, with support of a couple dozen Democrats and one Republican, proposed two new income tax surcharges. Taxes would go up 12.5 percent on taxable income between $43,000 and $158,000. On taxable income above $158,000, taxes would be increased 25 percent.
Taxable income is the amount left after personal exemptions and deductions have been subtracted from wages, business earnings and other types of income.
Currently, Vermont’s highest income tax rate is 9.5 percent. That is the rate paid on taxable income above $283,000. Under the plan the Progressives proposed Thursday, the highest Vermont tax rate would be 11.88 percent...
Dean reiterated his opposition to raising the income tax shortly after the Progressives unveiled their tax plan. Dean contends Vermont’s marginal income tax rate — that is, the top rate paid by those in the highest income brackets — already is too high.
http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/41293.htmlThis is the exact same type of taxation called for and supported by the DLC.
Deans stance on progressive taxation is FAR to the right of the DLC.
On budget cuts Dean took the stance:
Medicaid cuts will affect thousands of Vermonters
January 23, 2002
By DAVID MACE
Vermont Press Bureau
MONTPELIER — Tens of thousands of Vermonters would see their state health care benefits rolled back or cut off completely under Gov. Howard Dean’s proposed budget, which seeks to wring $16.5 million in savings from Medicaid.
In an effort to curb costs in a rapidly expanding part of the social services budget, Dean is proposing to require many people who got coverage under his expansions of Medicaid programs to pay for a greater share of their health care.
Medicaid is the state-run program that uses both state and federal money to provide benefits to the poor and disabled. Over the past several years Dean has expanded the programs by allowing participation by Vermonters with incomes higher than the federal guidelines.
Under the proposed budget, about 3,200 elderly or disabled Vermonters who get half the cost of long-term drugs paid for under a program called VScript Expanded would see their benefits disappear. This would save the state nearly $2.5 million. A single Vermonter with an annual income up to $19,332 is currently eligible.
http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/41169.htmlSenate adds money to budget, angers Dean
May 9, 2002
By ROSS SNEYD The Associated Press
MONTPELIER — Senators passed a 2003 state budget Wednesday that the governor made clear he would veto if it ever reached his desk.
Just hours after an angry Gov. Howard Dean leveled a series of charges about how irresponsible he believed the Senate, controlled by his fellow Democrats, was being, senators did precisely what he warned them not to do.
Even the governor’s closest allies in the Senate ignored him. Sen. Nancy Chard, D-Windham, recommended restoring $440,000 to one of the pharmaceutical assistance programs and the Senate voted 22-7 to go along with her.
“I’ve become convinced that we have a philosophical difference between the governor, the Republican House and this Senate,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham.
“The governor and the Republican House want to balance this budget on the backs of our most vulnerable Vermonters. The Senate wants to balance this budget on the backs of the pharmaceutical companies who are charging too much for drugs.”
http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/46513.htmlDeans actions were lumped together with Republicans by those "CONSERVATIVE" DLC democrats.
They sound more like tax and spend democrats to me. Raise taxes on the rich in order to prevent cutting programs or charging the poor for services types. That does not quite fit the conservative mold.
You cannot fins one case of Dean demanding income tax hiles on the rich, or opposing cuts to the cuts to education social programs that Dean recommended being supported by even ONE of the other candidates or even any of the leadership of the DLC.
But you can find many instances of Dean doing so while he was governor:
The state was in a fiscal crisis at the time, working its way out of the biggest budget deficit in its history. Then-Gov. Richard Snelling had pushed a series of temporary tax increases and budget cuts through the Legislature and Dean took up that austerity plan as his own.
To the anger of more liberal members of his own party, he insisted that the tax increases be rolled back on schedule and then went on to work for additional tax cuts later in his tenure.
By the same token, though, he also supported raising taxes — as long as it wasn’t the income tax — when school funding crises and other issues arose that required it.
Throughout, he held a tight rein on state spending, repeatedly clashing with the Democrats who controlled the Legislature for most of his years as governor.
Dean trimmed spending or held down increases in areas held dear by the liberals. More than once, Dean went to battle over whether individual welfare benefits should rise under automatic cost of living adjustments. Liberals were particularly incensed when he tried that tactic on a program serving the blind, disabled and elderly, which he did several times.
Dean turned often to the bully pulpit to belittle and berate them.
http://www4.fosters.com/News2003/May2003/May_19/News/reg_vt0519a.aspNotice, it was not Dean who created the plan that got Vermont out of its 65 million dollar bdget deficit. It was Richard Snelling (a republican) who reoalized the only way to get out of the deficit was to institute a progressive tax system, with three tiers that taxed the rich more highly thna the poor. It was Dena who ended the progressive tax system to institute a mre conservative one.
The DLC is far more Progressive and Liberal than Dean.
It way McGovern, running a campaign very similar to Deans attacking the democratic party as giving in to much to the Republicans (when this was not true. Like Dean, McGovern misrepresented the party's actions in being unable to get Nixon out of Vietnam, attracting the Youth vote, who like those who support Dean, refuse to beleive that COngress has the power to prevent a President from waging war and using force, when they have no such power at all.) Deans actions. similarly will weken the part even more, and to the delight of those neo-conservatives like Grover Norquist will shrink the democratic party's progressive ideals to a size so that the party can be drowned in a bathtub.
Not one of the candidates running for the nomination other than Dean has made cuts to social programs, suggested tax cuts that favored thee wealthy, heavily used taxes like property taxes which hit the poor and middle classes much harder than the rich. But Dean did these things.
It is a joke to support Dean against the DLC by thropwing charges that the DLC is more conservative. Kerry has never suported the kind of program cuts Dean has, which fiscally liberal minority democrats favor. These people will look for the candidates that more closely have followed their socially consevative and fiscally liberal policies. All that is necessary is for a few television news programs that use th words, Dean, cut, and Medicaid in the same sentence, and they will not support Dean. THe other candidates can be said to suport gay rights and civil unions, but Dean actually passed the first such legislation, do his actions will have a great deal more adverse effects than the candidates talk.
They all know that none of the candidates is ideal, but Dena will be viewed as least ideal becasue they will eventually learn what he has DONE and see a disconnect with what he is campaigning on.
The black democrats in the south actually SUPPORT the Iraq Act, as many rural socially conservatve democrats do.
They would prefer the government to run a deficit as long as they can keep their social programs whole, and not beasked to pick up a greater share of the cost, as Dean tried to do.
Especially among black democrats. They are used to presidential candiddates trying to con their vote out of them with promises of 40 acres and a mule. They are usually quite skeptical of campaign talk and want to now what they have done. If the words "Show me the money" apply anywhere it is among minorities who have been on the lower rungs of the economic ladder and cut fewer breaks than the rich.
Having had a black room mate in college just aint enough.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(24 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
