Will prices and taxes go even higher at least short term under Dean?

[bigtree]

I believe that is what he is saying by signaling on 'Meet the Press' that Wal-Mart shoppers will pay higher prices under his budget to give the foreign companies that supply them a raise. What about the American consumer?

And why should middle-Americans be willing to give up tax breaks in the short run with the promise of a rising economy. What exactly is his economic model for this and what is his timetable?

It seems that if you remove middle class tax benefits like the child credit it will, at least in the short run, mean less money going into these families pockets and more going out to the government that doesn't need it.

How does higher prices and higher taxes resulting from the first budget of a 'President' Dean translate into a benefit for Americans?

[creativelcro]

1. Wait until GWB's Ponzi scheme collapses...

then you'll see prices go higher....

[bigtree]

2. But this is primary season.

Other candidates have different plans. None that I know of have asserted that prices and taxes will go even higher under their economic plan.

[creativelcro]

10. Wow: the other candidates don't say prices will go higher!

Wondering why, and wondering on what factual basis... Howard is pragmatic, he talks based on numbers and figure... It's easy to promise things and say things will be fine, no problem, right ? Anybody can do that. I want to know the options, how much they cost, the consequences etc... I want details, not fantasies...

[bigtree]

49. Details- John Kerry

John Kerry's Plan to Fight for America's Economic Future
August 28, 2003
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_0828.html


George W. Bush's policies are destroying America's economic security. Our nation has gone from financial stability to record deficits; from creating 23 million new jobs to losing over 3 million jobs. Corporate scandals - some led by Bush's closest corporate cronies –have wiped out personal savings and shaken investor confidence. And American families are finding they must work harder and harder just to keep up.

George W. Bush has supported tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations with the false promise that some of that money might one day trickle down to middle class families and bolster our economy – but the Bush policies are a proven failure. John Kerry’s priority will be middle class families working hard to cover the mortgage, pay the high cost of health care, child care and tuition, or just trying to get ahead. It’s time that the nation’s economic policy put the American worker and American entrepreneur first.

John Kerry has a plan to secure America’s economic future and ensure that workers can achieve the American dream in our changing economy. His vision is to put Americans back to work; make America’s economy the most competitive in the world; and to restore America’s values of equity and fairness to our tax code by helping America’s middle class families and small entrepreneurs succeed.

JOHN KERRY'S PLAN WILL:

(1) Jumpstart Jobs with a new "State Tax Relief and Education Fund" and a New Manufacturing Tax Credit.

(2) Use American Ingenuity to Invest in the Industries of the Future.

(3) Provide a New College Opportunity Tax Cut to Assure Americans Can Afford Four Years of College.

(4) Provide Tax Relief for Middle Class Families Trying to Make Ends Meet and End Unfair Relief for Corporate America.

(5) Bring Financial Discipline Back to Washington.

*********

(1) STEPS TO JUMPSTART JOB GROWTH TODAY
John Kerry would use the money from the first year of repealing Bush’s tax cuts for the top one percent of Americans on a short-term plan to jumpstart job creation with:

A New ‘State Tax Relief and Education Fund’. The Bush economic approach has left states with nearly $90 billion in budget deficits, forcing lay offs, education cuts, and tax increases. This fund will help states struggling to bridge deficits resulting from Bush’s economic policies with an additional $25 billion a year for two years to stop the education cuts, tuition increases and tax and fee raising that are inhibiting our economic growth and causing layoffs. This fund includes Kerry’s proposed $5 billion to stop state cuts in health care that hurt workers and patients, $5 billion for homeland security to stem layoffs of police officers and fire fighters, and his commitment to fully fund the No Child Left Behind education law.

Tax Breaks to Expand Manufacturing Jobs in the U.S. Over 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since President Bush took office. John Kerry will save jobs by ending the unpatriotic practice of U.S. corporations moving offshore simply to avoid paying their fair share of our nation’s tax burden. To create new manufacturing jobs Kerry will:

Get the Crane-Rangel-Hollings legislation enacted, which provides a corporate rate reduction to manufacturers who produce goods in the United States;

Propose a new jobs tax credit to encourage manufacturing companies to stay and expand in America. When a manufacturing company creates jobs above their 12 month average, the payroll taxes of the new employees will be refunded for two years.

Immediately restore and double funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership that President Bush slashed by 80%.

Job Creation Summits. Ours is a large and complex economy and John Kerry believes that we must understand the challenges to economic prosperity in each sector. He will hold economic policy summits once a week for the first six months of his Presidency to develop targeted strategies to create jobs in key regions and key industries.
(2) USING AMERICAN INGENUITY TO CREATE A STRONG ECONOMIC FUTURE. We must fight for our economic security not only by stimulating job growth today but also by ensuring that our research, our technology investment, and our spirit for innovation are paving the way for high wage jobs in new industries.

Make Trade Work for America. The Bush Administration has neglected to enforce trade laws or respond to the unfair practices of some of our nation's largest trading partners. As President, John Kerry will: order an immediate 120 day top to bottom review of all trade agreements to ensure that foreign nations fully comply with trade agreements they sign with our country; vigorously enforce our trade laws to ensure our workers are not victims of unfair trading practices; insist future trade agreements incorporate within them core labor standards and environmental protections; demand that other countries, such as China, do not manipulate their currencies to gain unfair trade advantages; and help any workers displaced by trade develop new skills and find new jobs.

Control Rising Health Care Costs so Our Industries Can Compete. Businesses cannot compete if they are weighed down by health care costs, especially since the health care costs of our industrial competitors are often subsidized by government. It costs U.S. automakers $1,000 per car just to cover health care costs for employees. John Kerry’s plan controls rising health care costs by helping pay for catastrophic care cases.

Revitalize the High Technology Sector to Pave the Way for Industries of the Future. Kerry will fight to connect every American family to the Internet, encourage a renewed educational focus on science and math, bring the best practices of operational efficiency from the private sector to the public sector, and restore the government's commitment to scientific achievement through increases in research funding for the Department of Energy, NASA, and the National Science Foundation. Kerry will also strongly support programs targeted at the next generation of innovation, such as nanotechnology and biotechnology research.

New Manufacturing Jobs by Investing in America's Energy Independence. The recent massive blackout leaves no question that our foreign oil dependence and obsolete electricity system undermine our economy. Kerry will create hundreds of thousands of good jobs, many of them in manufacturing, by investing in the new energy opportunities of the future such as: producing 20 percent of all our electricity from renewable sources by 2020; giving tax credits to manufacturers to develop the next generation of automobiles; new energy efficient appliances for homes and businesses; and investing in projects like building the Alaska National Pipeline.

(3) MAKING FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE AFFORDABLE. To be successful in the 21st Century economy, America’s workforce must be more innovative and productive than our competitors. That means better science and math in our schools and job training opportunities. But it also means giving every American the opportunity of four years of college.

Create a New “College Opportunity Tax Credit”. Kerry’s “College Opportunity Tax Credit” will make four years of college affordable for all Americans. He will provide a credit for each and every year of college on the first $4,000 paid in tuition – the typical tuition and fees for public college tuition. The credit will provide 100% of the first $1000 and 50% on the rest. It will also make this credit refundable for those who receive other credits.

Pay College Tuition for Students That Give Two Years of Service to America. Kerry’s ‘Service for College’ plan will provide the cost of four years at a public college to young people in exchange for serving their communities and country in national service.

(4) PROVIDE TAX RELIEF TO MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES RATHER AND CRACK DOWN ON UNFAIR RELIEF FOR CORPORATE AMERICA. President Bush has turned a blind eye to struggling American families, despite the fact that today’s two-earner families are earning 75 percent more than their single earner family counterparts a generation ago, but they have less money to spend due to soaring housing costs, day care, college tuition, and health care. John Kerry would:

Keep the Middle Class Tax Cuts to Help Families Make Ends Meet. John Kerry believes that we should keep the middle class tax cuts that Democrats fought for in 2001 and 2003, which increased the child tax credit, reduced the marriage penalty and lowered tax rates. He strongly disagrees with Democrats who want to repeal these tax cuts, which would cost a typical middle-class family with two children an additional $2000.

Help Americans Get Ahead.

College Tax Cut: John Kerry will help Americans get ahead with his new “College Opportunity Tax Credit” by ensuring college is available for four years for every American.

Helping Create Wealth in the Stock Market: John Kerry opposes the dividend tax cuts in the 2003 tax bill that result in receptionists paying higher tax rates than CEOs. However, he does believe that middle class Americans should get more from their investments and will lower capital gains and dividend taxes for the middle class.
Making Corporate America Live By America’s Values. Our economy does well when our workers are doing well.

Today, Americans who are working hard and playing by the rules are faced with higher health care costs, higher state taxes, higher college tuition and limited job opportunities. At the same time, many corporations are bending the rules and shirking their fair share of the burden - and the Bush Administration is rewarding those who break the rules with lucrative government contracts. Kerry will fight for a government that rewards those who work hard and play by the rules and challenges those who don’t.

Restore Investor Confidence With Strong Enforcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission: John Kerry will fund strong budgets and assure strong enforcement by the SEC.

Stop Corporations From Keeping Bank Accounts in Countries like Bermuda to Avoid Paying Taxes. John Kerry believes that American companies should not be allowed to set up virtual headquarters in foreign countries that are hardly more than mailboxes just to avoid paying U.S. taxes.

Assure Corporations Account for Disparities on the Books. A recent Joint Committee on Taxation report found that Enron claimed a $2.3 billion in profit between 1996 and 1999 in reports to its investors, while reporting a $3 billion tax loss to the IRS. John Kerry believes corporations should have to account these kinds of disparities.

Stop Giving Government Contracts to Corporations Breaking the Rules. The Federal government should not give lucrative contracts to companies that have a record of accounting fraud – like WorldCom – or are moving offshore.

End Unfair Protections for CEOs. Executives should not be walking away with millions of dollars in salaries and benefits while their workers are laid off their companies are defaulting on loans. Kerry would tighten the laws that allow corporations to take advantage of tax deductions for performance based executive pay – even when executives do nothing to improve productivity.

Protect Worker Rights. Kerry believes that ensuring there is a fair playing field for workers is important to a strong economy. He supports increasing the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation; improving workplace health and safety; assuring fair overtime rules; and worker’s right to join a union.

(5) RESTORE FISCAL DISCIPLINE: By borrowing from future generations to give tax relief to those who need help the least, George W. Bush’s economic policies have, for the first time in history, forced the federal government to spend $1 billion more EACH DAY than it takes in. President Bush’s exploding deficits are destroying the solvency of Social Security and Medicare and he has placed the enormous burden of saving these programs on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren. John Kerry believes that we need a smaller and smarter government that wastes less money. John Kerry’s plan will:

Balance the Budget

Cut the Deficit in Half: John Kerry is committed to balancing the budget. He has put forward a sensible plan that will at least cut the deficit in half in his first term, while investing in economic growth and investing in workers.

A Balanced Budget Summit: The best way to get to a balanced budget is not in partisan bickering, but in bipartisan cooperation. As President, John Kerry will call a Balanced Budget Summit that will require all sides to work together to make at least temporary sacrifices -- even in their top priorities -- as part of a concerted effort to restore fiscal discipline and fight for our future.

End Special Tax Breaks: To restore fiscal discipline and strengthen our economy, Kerry will repeal Bush’s special tax breaks for Americans who make more than $200,000.

Cut Excesses in Government: One of the Bush Administrations well-kept secrets is that under his watch the size of government has actually gotten bigger – not smaller. John Kerry will reduce the size of the Federal government by: bringing spending down to the level of GDP it was under Clinton, requiring federal agencies to submit annual plans to reduce energy costs by 20 percent by 2020; cut the Federal government’s administrative costs by five percent; cut the number of political appointees and ban providing bonuses for political appointees; cut fraud and abuse in government programs – fraud and abuse is estimated to cost $12 billion in Medicare alone and end rules that prevent the Federal government from having the same purchasing authority as the private sector.
Reign in Out of Control Spending

Restore Budget Rules to Stop Runaway Spending. John Kerry believes we need to reverse the new budget rules Republicans in Congress have established that make it easier to spend into deficits with fewer votes. He will also review and reassess all discretionary spending programs to determine their effectiveness and whether they should continue to be funded.

Implement the McCain-Kerry Commission on Corporate Welfare. Powerful special interest groups make it hard to cut special tax loopholes and pork barrel spending projects. John Kerry supports a Commission that would recommend cuts and require Congress to vote on all recommendations, so no single special interest could fight for pet projects.

Pass a Constitutional Line-Item Veto to Reduce Corporate Welfare and Excessive Spending. Under Kerry’s plan, the President would identify wasteful spending items in the budget and submit the list to Congress to vote on in an up-or-down fashion – saving billions of dollars.

[asjr]

11. I doesn't matter

in a way which candidate becomes president of the people. I am speaking Democratically here. How else will be get out of this infernal mess if some taxes are not raised? The smalll tax cut that lower and middle income earners got was nothing but a cow pissing on a flat rock. They got them politically--not because of compassionate conservatism. Remember how much money the upper echelons received.

[bigtree]

24. Gov. Dean wants to take that 'nothing' and give it back to the government

The last middle class benefit that Congress passed is up to $2000.00 for some families. What sense does it make to take that money and give it back to the government? They need more of their earned pay, not less.

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. I would guard against expectations of change, whoever wins. Remember

the election, politics, is not about changing things. It's about winning.
It's about new anchor talent, not changing the news.

It's about winning, about beating bush.

Don't lose sight of what you're winning and what you're beating him at.

[bigtree]

4. I haven't lost sight.

I want to know if the Governor's economic plan will raise prices and taxes with the first budget he submits? It will won't it? None of the other candidates have asserted that. If so, why is this a good thing?

[mopinko]

9. dean's will, kerry's will, whoever is elected

taxes will go up. even if bush is elected, republican senators will not renew the tax cuts in toto. ALL POLITICIANS get the dirty business out of the way right away. so what is the difference? one candidate is talking to people like grown ups and refusing to make promises he knows he can not keep. vote for the grown up.
prices is another matter. this will not happen quickly. things will cycle through the economy. the president does not have a button to push to raise prices at walmart.

[bigtree]

14. Why would Gov. Dean assert that prices would go up at Wal-Mart?

And why should middle-America lose benefits, if only in the short run? Why should they give up anything? Haven't they taken it on the chin already under Bush. Why should they be made responsible for digging the government out of its hole? Why should they give more of their paycheck to the government? Isn't that the effect of what the Governor is proposing by eliminating the child credit, reinstating the marrige penalty, etc.?

[artr2]

28. Well bigtree, the best way I can explain it is

the corporate whores known as congress decided that since rich people have been supporting them for so long that they will support them for awhile by giving them the keys to the United States Treasury. and they have had them for 3 years now and we are just about broke. Now we need to get someone like Howard Dean in there so his proven track record of fiscal responsibility will stop the hemorrhage of money from the treasury. Yes, taxes will go up. After every party stuff has to be cleaned up. Even party's that you were not invited to. You had to rich & republican to attend. Doesn't describe me and I hope it doesn't describe you. We are poor and democratic. It's always been to us to clean up after the party.

[bigtree]

30. It was their party

They have more than enough money left to clean up without asking the middle class to kick in once again.

[artr2]

38. No sir,

The money has been spent. The rich took it. Shame on us for letting them do it. Wake up and smell the coffee. I don't want the country bankrupt. Ever hear the phrase "Guaranteed with the full faith of the United States Government"? Well if we keep it up, it will not mean nothing and who wants to buy the bonds of someone who's word means nothing? So I will pay the higher taxes, my friend. The word of my country should mean something

[bigtree]

41. There is enough middle class money in government hands already

I don't think average taxpayers should have to clean up after the crooks who robbed the treasury. Especially when these people are still fat with our money. You can't help the middle-class by picking their pockets and giving the money back to the government to spend.

[MercutioATC]

81. What would you pay for better schools and healthcare for all?

How about a balanced budget and improved infrastructure? How about jobs and lower property and state taxes?

THESE are the real issues. You've been fooled into believing that the grand you got back is a good thing. In fact, you're paying much more that that $1k for the things you've lost. All Dean is asking is that we return to the same tax structure we had 3 tyears ago (remember, when everybody was happy?). After we deal with the basics, we'll look at tax cuts.

[mopinko]

57. the middle class tax cut

is a mirage for chrissakes. repealing bush's tax cuts (not repealing anyway, just not renewing) is not a tax increase on the middle class, it is a tax increase on the rich.
we all railed about this plan. now people want to hang on to it? wtf? you are happy that the rich are looting the treasury, as long as they send you a check for a couple hundred bucks? i am not too sure you are a democrat.
i agree with howard, i will take bill clinton's taxes if i can have bill clinton's economy. and remember that he inherited pretty much the same kind of mess.
this kind of bottom line, "i got mine, the heck with the common good this government is supposed to take care of" thinking makes me :puke:

[bigtree]

59. That mirage will pay a lot of bills

I got my crumbs, which I sorely need, but the rich robbed the treasury and put our economy at risk. Not me or any of the other average taxpayers. The rich robbed the treasury. I should not have to pay for that.

[MercutioATC]

80. No, but you SHOULD have to pay for the healthcare, better education,

improved infrastructure and lower local and state taxes you'll enjoy.

We need to wake up and stop trying to vote ourselves "bread and circuses". If we want something, we have to be prepared to pay for it. How can you (or I) complain about a few hundred more in taxes when there are people working full-time who go without any healthcare...who can't afford food or housing?

I'm a rare middle class case. I'm saving over $1k/year under Bush's plans and I live in a community that's financially solvent enough that my property taxes have actually decreased. I's STILL rather see a balanced budget, more jobs, and basic services for all...

[mopinko]

5. wal mart prices

imho the only mistake that howard made in that interview was his failure to point out that the higher prices at wal-mart will be a matter of PENNIES. jim hightower has an analysis in his book "thieves in high places" of the labor cost of sweat vs union labor for a typical t-shirt is less that 20 cents. 20 CENTS.
it is all a vicious cycle. people making minimum wage, or less care about those few pennies. people who are making a living wage can afford the couple of pennies.

[bigtree]

7. Fair enough

Taxes?

[mopinko]

58. see #57 np

[ant]

6. money isn't the only thing with value

And why should middle-Americans be willing to give up tax breaks in the short run with the promise of a rising economy.

As Dean explains it, there haven't been any real breaks for middle-Americans. Yes, yes, they get however hundred dollars back on their tax return, but in the meantime their property taxes have gone up and they've lost much more than the tax break in the form of health and education services. In the end, in terms of value, not just hard cash, middle Americans have lost more than they've gained.

It seems that if you remove middle class tax benefits like the child credit it will, at least in the short run, mean less money going into these families pockets and more going out to the government that doesn't need it.

But the government DOES need it. Look at the deficit. Dean's number one priority is to balance the budget, and that'll require an increase in revenue and/or a decrease in spending. Hey, it sucks, but that's reality.

I'm not good on econ issue, so I can't argue theory on any of this, but I can tel you it makes sense to me as an everyday voter. Yeah, it sucks that we have to give back so many of the nice things we got under Clinton (Dean mentioned Family Leave today), but that's what happens when you get screwed by Republicans. We can't just up and have those good times again, we need to rebuild from scratch, and EVERYONE has to sacrifice for it.

I'll grant that Americans may not be willing or able to face this reality, but there it is.

[bigtree]

12. So in the short term, middle America will take it on the chin under Dean?

He's promising an economy that will raise all boats, but isn't it true that middle America will be asked to bear even more, in the short-term, under the first Dean Budget?

No other candidate has asserted this.

[ant]

16. I don't know the answer to that

Others here are saying that the amounts would be small. You're characterizing it as "taking it on the chin." Who's right? What are the actual numbers?

Here's my position: I haven't seen those numbers, but I don't need to, because everything I've seen of Dean tells me he's going to do the best he can under the circumstances. I seriously doubt he's going to place some huge tax burden on the middle class. The Bush tax cuts were heavily tilted towards the wealthy - we all know and accept that - so repealing those tax cuts is going to affect the wealthy most.

If there is an actual increase beyond that - most of this has struck me not as "raising" taxes but as repealing the tax cuts - I assume it would also follow a progressive model that minimizes, as much as possible, the burden placed on middle and working class families.

[bigtree]

19. If I get a child credit now and Dean repeals that, it's a cut in my income

How will families maintain with less income, even in the short run?

[ant]

34. how much of a cut?

http://www.nctimes.net/news/2001/20010721/51639.html

Liza Grady, the wife of a Camp Pendleton Marine, opened a letter this week expecting to hear about the $600 tax rebate owed to her and promised by Bush as relief to American taxpayers as part of his $1.6 billion tax cut plan.

Instead, the Internal Revenue Service told her that she and her family will get just $69.

"This is wrong," Grady said Thursday. "Sixty-nine dollars does not relieve me of anything."

I'm pretty sure Ms. Grady would be willing to give back the 69 bucks if it would get the country back on track and put more money in her pocket over the long term.

Are you telling me your family couldn't survive with $69 less a year? How about $100 less? $200 less? What's your limit, and how does it compare to the tax "cuts" you actually got?

I realize this is a cut in your income, but I'm doubting it's really that much. If it IS a lot that means you make more and can probably take it. We all know the poor got screwed on the those cuts so repealing them isn't going to have much of an effect on them. They didn't really benefit to begin with, so repealing them won't have much of an effect, either.

Look, I know this sounds harsh, but people need to get over it. I realize you didn't vote for Bush or support his economic plan - none of us did - but we are where we are and just as we all suffer being here we're all going to have to suffer to get out.

I agree this isn't a message that sells well. I'd much rather be promised unicorns and rainbows - who wouldn't? - but that's just not the reality we live in, so people are gonna have to grow up and face facts. If you want I will personally send you $69 to make up the difference, whatever it takes to get this country on the right track.

[bigtree]

44. Kerry opposes a tax increase on the middle class.

John Kerry's position on middle class taxes is more understandable to me.

Iowan says “We Can’t Be Taxed Any More”
January 07, 2004
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0107d.html

Highlighting the position of Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt, who support raising taxes on the middle class, John Kerry will hit the airwaves tomorrow with a new television ad featuring Elizabeth Hendrix, an Iowan trying to make ends meet and who opposes a tax increase on the middle class. The ad will run statewide in Iowa.

Elizabeth Hendrix of Des Moines is a single mother of four children who makes $28,000. Under the Dean/Gephardt tax increase, Elizabeth would lose $1,800 in tax relief.
Text of Ad:
Elizabeth Hendrix: My husband died of cancer a few years ago. I’m working full time, raising 4 boys, and earn $28,000. I think it makes sense to roll back the tax cuts on the wealthiest people in this country. But some candidates want to raise taxes on the middle class. We can’t be taxed any more. John Kerry’s not going to raise taxes on the middle class.

John Kerry: I don’t think we should be asking the middle class to be the people who are going to pick up for George Bush’s mistakes.

Elizabeth Hendrix: John Kerry understands what’s going on in my life.



John Kerry Proposes Middle-Class Tax Cut To Make Four Years of College Affordable
Says Middle-Class Families Need Tax Cuts—Not Tax Increases
September 12, 2003
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_0912.html

Presidential candidate John Kerry visited Benedict College today where he announced the centerpiece of his middle class tax plan—a new College Opportunity Tax Credit that would make four years of college affordable for hardworking families struggling with skyrocketing tuition costs.
Kerry’s proposal would relieve the burden on middle class and low-income families, and reflects his strong disagreement with those in his own party—including Howard Dean—who have proposed time and time again to raise taxes by thousands of dollars on hardworking families who are already struggling to pay the bills.

John Kerry said, “Middle class families are taking too many hits already – their health care costs are rising, housing payments are higher, their jobs less secure, and college is costing more and more. The last thing these students’ families need is a tax increase.

“Unfortunately, some in my party want to repeal the tax cuts Democrats gave middle class families. This is wrong, and my plan will provide tax credits that keep college within reach for all students. We need to offer these students and their families our support—and that starts with a quality education.”

Kerry has introduced a College Opportunity Tax Credit that would make four years of college affordable for all Americans. He will provide a credit for each and every year of college on the first $4,000 paid in tuition—the typical tuition and fees for public college tuition. The credit will provide 100% of the first $1000 and 50% on the rest. It will also make this credit refundable so that it helps the most vulnerable students.


John Kerry Sends Letter to Howard Dean Asking Him to Reverse Course on Middle Class Tax Cuts, Medicare
September 24, 2003
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_0924b.html

Presidential candidate John Kerry today sent a letter to Howard Dean asking him to reverse course on his positions on Medicare and repeal tax cuts for the middle class. Read the letter
In the letter Kerry wrote, “I am writing to ask you to change your position on two issues that are fundamental to our nation and Democratic Party and: the middle class tax relief and protecting Medicare. As you know, our party has a long history and tradition of supporting the nation’s working families. Yet you have supported increasing taxes for the middle class and balancing the budget by cutting Medicare for seniors.

“I believe that it is critical that our party continue to stand for hard working Americans. That is our history and our mission. Therefore, I hope you will reconsider your positions on these essential issues”

Read John Kerry's Health Care plan here:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/kerry_health_plan.pdf


John Kerry Pledges to Support Middle Class Families, Not Raise Their Taxes
Child Tax Credit Makes A Difference for Working Americans
September 09, 2003
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2003_0909b.html

Presidential candidate John Kerry today visited the Downtown Baltimore Children’s Center to talk about his support for the middle-class tax cuts like the child tax credit that are right for hardworking families and right for America. Today, John Kerry pledged to help families with children who are struggling to make ends meet, by fully protecting expansions of the child tax credit and the child care credit. Kerry also underscored his commitment to expanding access to health care coverage to all children and improving early childhood education.

John Kerry said, “If I am President, I will rollback the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in education, health care, and the skills of our workers. But I want to give the middle class a tax cut, not a tax increase. Too many middle class people are getting pummeled everywhere they turn – more bills to pay, a higher cost of living. And for all of this President’s talk about tax cuts, middle class families have seen their share of the tax burden go up, not down. Some in my party want to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class. This would hurt those who most deserve our help. After they’ve had to deal with George Bush, the last thing middle class people deserve is a President making it even harder for them to make ends meet. I’m for a tax cut for the middle class.


Dean Flip-Flops on Tax Cuts
First He Said NO to Tax Cuts for the Middle Class, Now He Says Maybe, Later
January 07, 2004
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0107e.html


Howard Dean is at it again. In a stunning case of history repeating itself, Dean today informed media representatives that he is working on a middle class tax plan but he refused to provide details, including when his plan would be made public. His advisors say it’s not ready and won’t be until after February 1.

All the secrecy reminds one of the Vermont energy plan Dean devised in secret while he was Governor. Records regarding Dean’s secret energy meetings are still locked away.
“Hiding things is becoming a costly habit for Howard Dean,” said Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. “He devised an energy plan in secret. He locked away his records. He said he’d cut entitlements but not which programs. Now his plan for tax relief for the middle class is a secret.”

Since Howard Dean refuses to say how he will provide middle income tax relief and roll back the Bush tax cuts while still paying for education, health care and other essential services, you have to go back to his history in Vermont to get a real idea of what is in store for America.

Dean “Balanced Budget on Backs of Elderly and Poor.” “Some are saying Gov. Howard Dean's proposed state budget is balanced on the backs of the elderly, the poor and local property taxpayers. It is. To balance his budget, the governor is asking thousands of older, disabled and poor Vermonters to pay $12 million more for their prescription drugs; he is cutting $10 million in aid to local schools and raising taxes on middle income Vermonters by roughly $5 million. He is also proposing major cuts in aid to town highways.”

Dean Fought Democrats Who Wanted to Cut Taxes for Working Poor. “Indeed, Shumlin said he is still angry with Dean for raising the sales tax, putting Vermont at a disadvantage with New Hampshire, with no sales tax. ‘I am still enraged,’ said Shumlin. … ‘If Howard Dean had agreed with the Democrats, we would have reduced the sales tax on the working poor and kept in place the high income tax on those who can afford it. It is the same argument he is making against Bush, frankly.’”
Dean Wanted to Cut Recipients, Increase Health Care Costs. Under Dean’s 2002 budget, seniors were singled out as “big losers” by the Associated Press. Dean asked the Legislature to cut 3,100 seniors from the state prescription drug program, and required thousands more to increase their payments for drugs. People covered under the state health insurance plan would also have to pay more for doctor’s visits, would not get state assistance for dentures, most dental coverage, or podiatric care.

“Didn’t Howard Dean say the biggest lie politicians tell you is making promises to get your vote? Now, with just over a week before the first votes are cast, he is making one of those promises. Clearly, Howard Dean has few core beliefs. He’s showing he same lack of judgment today on middle class tax cuts as he has on foreign policy over the last year. Middle class families have had a hard enough time and they deserve more than an IOU from Howard Dean,” said Cutter.

[Eloriel]

29. No, in the short term they'll go back to Clinton era taxes

which not all that many people were complaining about and the ones who were sounded a bit like you, thinking government deserves and needs NO money.

With Dean's healthcare program, most people would get FAR more financial benefit than they got with Bush's puny tax cut for all but the top 1 - 3%.

After the federal budget is under control and fiscal disaster and meltdown have been avoided, Dean will work hard for a completel revision of our taxes to ensure FAIR taxation.

Hey, I'll happily pay 20 cents more per item at WalMart for all that.

[bigtree]

35. That would be a cut for most middle Americans

Other candidates have deficit reduction plans with a health care component. None of the others however, are calling for the repeal of the midle class tax cuts that Congress passed along with the giveaway to the rich. Middle class Americans need more of the money they earn, not less. You can't grow an economy by taking money from the middle class and giving it back to the government.

[DuctapeFatwa]

32. The middle class is being phased out. Maybe Dean is being more

candid on this particular point than some of the others, but to repeat my earlier post, what will be won if a Democrat wins is not a change in current policies, but having them implemented by a Democrat.

[bigtree]

37. A cut in tax benefits is a cut in income

The talk of middle class being phased-out is baffling. What benefit is there in taking money from middle class wage earners and giving it back to the government to spend?

[DuctapeFatwa]

43. A feudalist system is better for the lords

In the case of the US, the lords would be large corporations, the very wealthy. the money, in taxes and free or nearly-free labor of the serfs goes to the king, who then distributes it to the lords.

There is no need for a middle class.

[progressivebydesign]

60. You posted that question, but had your own answer already..

Not fair to post a "question" when it's really an attempt to paint the candidate in the way you see him. If you have a legitimate question, then listen to the answers... rather than interjecting your opinion on that question to people that respond legitimately. You'll learn more that way.

Dean is right about this. How long with America be willing to watch their jobs disappear so that we can buy 6.00 shoes at Kmart and Walmart??? We're afflicted with a consumer disease.. empty lives filled with recreational shopping. It's a tough stance to take, but is there any OTHER way to bring the jobs back??

[bigtree]

64. I gave my opinion in the post about Gov. Dean's plan

"It seems that if you remove middle class tax benefits like the child credit it will, at least in the short run, mean less money going into these families pockets and more going out to the government that doesn't need it."


I'm not limited in my post to asking questions. Obviously I hold a different view from Gov. Dean. I have offered John Kerry's view of this issue, which Gov. Dean opposes. I don't presume to speak for other's plans. I oppose the governor's plan. I made it clear in my post. I didn't mean to be slippery. I thought my opposition was clear.

[zulchzulu]

8. Dean's proposals are Mondale's 1984 tax increase plea on steroids

The easiest way to explain Dean's sinking ship is to point out his plan to raise taxes on everyone and assume that everyone should pay more across the board.

Mondale did the same thing in 1984, only less obnoxiously. He got trounced by Reagan.

[artr2]

33. but there is no more money to give away

Reagan was the first one who gave them the keys to the treasury. The government was still a government then. Between reagan & the BFEE there is no money to give away. That is the difference in the scenario.

[bigtree]

45. I earn the money

Why should I willingly give it to the government to spend?

[mopinko]

56. who turned around and raised taxes

and trashed the economy.

[MercutioATC]

13. It's the only way to balance the budget and fully fund federal mandates.

Without fully funded federal mandates, the burden falls on the states, who pass it along to the taxpayers and local governments (who pass it along to taxpayers, too).

Short-term result: Small tax increases for the middle class...emphasis on small.

Long-term result: Increased federal spending for infrastructure, and education. This means 1) jobs and 2) lower taxes (or, at very least, eliminating the need for schools and municipalities to ask for levies). Within 2 or 3 years, the middle class should see a net gain from their "tax increase".

Dean's right. We can't have it all. Putting the nation on better fiscal ground will do more to help us than tax cuts.

[bigtree]

17. But in addition to your sketch, add in the repeal of the middle class

tax benefits that they now recieve. That's a cut in their income, at least in the short-term, maybe longer. Why should they go along with that when the top wage earners have gotten the lion share of benefits so far. Why should average taxpayers have to get a tax increase to fund the bloated government? Americans deserve more of their earned money, not less. What guarantee do they have that their boats will rise?

Isn't this like trickle down economics? Just wait, relief will come. When?

[MercutioATC]

72. It's definitely NOT "trickle-down" economics.

"Trickle-down" economics is giving money to the wealthy in the hope that they will buy things and create jobs, letting some of the benefits "trickle down" to the working class.

Dean's plan would be a huge hike for the wealthy and a very minor cut for the middle class (mostly the upper-middle class) in the short term. As the money was used to create jobs and take the financial burden of states and local governments, taxes there could be cut (don't say it wouldn't happen, Ohio has cut its state income tax before). Then, as we were able to balance the budget, Dean has said he would entertain restoring some, if not all, of the middle class tax cuts.

This plan would be nothing more than a slight pinch for a very few people, and that only for a couple of years. I'm one of those people and I'd gladly trade it for a healthy national economy.

[bigtree]

73. My candidate, John Kerry has it about right

I strongly disagree with anyone who would raise taxes on the middle class.

Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt want to increase their taxes. Their plan would raise taxes $2000 for a typical family with two kids. That's real money - more than a half a year of groceries and more than half a year of utility bills - including heat and water - and almost a year of health care premiums.

I think this is wrong. Middle class families have taken enough of a hit in this economy-with rising health care costs, higher energy costs, and lower pensions. The last thing they need is another hit. We should not balance the budget on the backs of middle class families. We should stand up for them. That's what I will do.

Yesterday, in the NPR debate, Dean said this is “hogwash” and he wouldn't change his position. But today, even his own advisors say they are urging him to soften the blow to the middle class, and are worried about the politics of raising taxes on the middle class by $2300.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0107c.html


Speaker: Senator John Forbes Kerry (MA)
Title: Letter to Former Governor Howard Dean
Location: Washington, DC
Date: 09/24/2003
Dear Governor Dean:

I am writing to ask you to change your position on two issues that are fundamental to our nation and Democratic Party and: the middle class tax relief and protecting Medicare. As you know, our party has a long history and tradition of supporting the nation's working families. Yet you have supported increasing taxes for the middle class and balancing the budget by cutting Medicare for seniors.

First, middle class families are working harder to make ends meet. They are facing rising health care costs, higher college tuition and higher housing costs. A recent book by Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi found that while two income families are earning 75 percent more than single earner counterparts a generation ago, they actually have less disposable income.

Despite the difficulties, your proposal adds a new burden to middle class families by raising the child credit, reinstating the marriage penalty and raising the 10 percent bracket. The Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts wasted too many valuable resources on the wealthy and it is critical for our economy and our future that we repeal the tax break that went to the wealthiest Americans.

However, that does not mean we need to raise taxes for middle class families who are working hard to raise their families. Your plan could cost a family with two kids $2,000 a year – that could mean the difference between paying the heating bill, paying for day care or helping an elderly relative.

We need a plan to bring back the economic growth we enjoyed in the Clinton years and a plan, like President Clinton, to cut the Bush deficit. But just bringing back the tax rates of the 1990s are not going to do that. Taking away the child tax credit does not mean families will find a better paying job. Reinstating the marriage penalty will not bring back a pension fund or lower property taxes.

We owe it to our nation and to our party to offer ideas that restore the economy and help middle class families. With real leadership we can provide health care, cut the deficit and preserve middle class tax cuts that Democrats fought for.
Second, I urge you to reject your previous support of the 1995 Republican proposal to cut Medicare. The Republican plan to reduce Medicare growth to 7 percent was projected to cut $270 billion out of the Medicare program – meaning higher premiums and cuts to hospitals and nursing homes. And you said, “I fully subscribe to the notion that we should reduce the Medicare growth rate from 10 percent to 7 percent, or less if possible.”

Our seniors are extremely vulnerable and many are on fixed incomes. They cannot afford additional premiums or a weaker Medicare program. Democrats stood up against the Gingrich effort to slash Medicare. In fact, it was so fundamental to our values that Democrats were willing to shut down the government to save the program.

Medicare is not as you have said “ one of the worst things that ever happened… a bureaucratic disaster…” or “one of the worst federal programs ever.” It is a lifeline for seniors and people with disabilities. It is a compact between generations and an American value.

I believe that it is critical that our party continue to stand for hard working Americans. That is our history and our mission. Therefore, I hope you will reconsider your positions on these essential issues.

Sincerely,
John Kerry

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/pr_2003_0924b.html#a1

[MercutioATC]

74. I don't agree with your numbers. The average cut is much less than that.

That aside, the tax cut was a bad idea in the first place for the economic health of our country. If Bush had set the "middle class" rate to 2%, would you advocate keeping that when our fiscal outlook is so bleak?

Look, we could afford it 3 years ago...we can afford it now. The benefits it'll provide will FAR outweigh the momentary pinch. You can't have all the government services the middle class seems to expect AND tax cuts. If the middle class is willing to give up services (public education, the arts, libraries, infrastructure, police and fire services, etc) great! Let 'em keep the $600 they "saved" under Bush.

I'll close by saying that I'm exactly the middle class person who will lose money if the Bush tax cuts go away. I even live in a financially stable (and wealthy) community, so I haven't suffered the property tax hikes that many have. I'm still 100% behind getting out financial house in order before providing tax cuts to ANYBODY except the people whi really NEED it...the working poor.

Talk about a bunch of damn whiners...there are people who work and yet can barely afford food and people in $200K houses are bitching about an extra grand in taxes...

[bigtree]

76. Thanks for writing MercutioATC!

This won't keep me from supporting the doctor if he is the nominee, but I distrust the notion that the middle class should give up anything until the crooks who robbed the treasury pony up.

I'm gonna re-read your posts.

[MercutioATC]

79. I agree that we should cut pork elsewhere, too.

There are some BIG dollars to be saved in BS pork projects. However, I still think that we, as members of a democracy, have become too used to voting ourselves "bread and circuses". We want all of the benefits, but we balk at paying for them. When it comes right down to it, "democracy" flies out the window and we do what we can to protect our own little chunk of turf.

I'd like to see a President who gets everybody healthcare, better education, more jobs and a balanced budget. THEN, we can start giving money back to people. In fact, we SHOULD start reducing the burden on the working poor and the middle class as soon as we can.

The biggest peoblem I have is that we, as Democrats, seem a lot more pissed with the extra grand in taxes that a family of 4 living in a $250k house is going to pay than the fact that the working poor simply can't afford food, shelter and medicine. If you ask me, the "middle class" (of which I'm a member) should sit the hell down and think about the working poor...

[arewethereyet]

15. of course they'll go up

each of you have to decide if thats good or bad for your fmaily but I know its not a good thing for mine.

[HFishbine]

18. Far better I suppose

to have our children saddled with a damaged economy and trillions of dollars in debt. I'm sure they'll thank us one day.

[bigtree]

21. I don't believe that taking money away from the middle-class

will grow our economy. We have to find ways to get more of the money they earn into their pockets and less into the hands of government.

The debt was run up by the siphoning off of our tax dollars by the wealthiest in the country. They needlessly got money thrown at them by Bush. The middle class got crumbs in comparison. Those who benefited the most from Bush's lopsided tax cuts should now bear the burden for recovery. Not the middle class, who got screwed in the last round of cuts. They need more of the money they earn, not less.

[ant]

42. you're not making sense

The debt was run up by the siphoning off of our tax dollars by the wealthiest in the country. They needlessly got money thrown at them by Bush. The middle class got crumbs in comparison. Those who benefited the most from Bush's lopsided tax cuts should now bear the burden for recovery. Not the middle class, who got screwed in the last round of cuts. They need more of the money they earn, not less.

IF you agree that the wealthy benefited more from the tax cuts than the middle class did, then it only makes sense that repealing those tax cuts will "hurt" the wealthy more than the middle class. So, those who benefited the most from Bush's lopsided tax cuts WILL bear the burden for recovery.

I don't see what your problem with all this is. We all agreed that the poor to middle class got very little from the tax cuts, so to now argue that repealing those tax cuts is going to somehow overburden them just doesn't make sense.

[bigtree]

46. If you take money from the middle class that they would recieve

under the current tax policy, that is a cut in their income. at least in the short term, possibly longer. How can these wage earners be sure that that money will come back. Services that only some Americans utilize may improve but what about the cut in their income. You can't act like taking a tax break away from the middle class represents anything other than a cut in their income. And that money just goes back to the government to spend.

That is trickle-down economics.

The middle-class needs more of their earned pay, not less.

[arewethereyet]

23. If the repeal would change all that it would be one thing

but it won't. Sure it would help but it doesn't address that insipid Medicare boondoggle, it doesn't address mamndates spending increases or national security issues that won't just go away.

If Muslims are willing to murder hundreds in a religeous ceremony and blow hundreds of others up, do you really think that they'll all go dove just because of some election thousands of miles away ?

Dean's plan is oversimplified and therefore useless. Ther tax cuts have stimulated the economy and nixing them will only prolong the recovery. You have to look at the whole picture, not just the parts you like.

[HFishbine]

25. And there you have it

"Ther tax cuts have stimulated the economy"

An Edward's supporting touting the position that the stock market is the economy.

[arewethereyet]

27. well, thats one number thats up

so if you prefer to ignore the others I guess thats your perrogative.

[HFishbine]

31. Oh, the other numbers.

You mean like employment and real wages?

Fine. Go ahead and support your candidate with the rhetoric that the tax cuts helped stimulate the economy.

[arewethereyet]

36. and GDP and manufacturing and consumer confidence

and, by the way, employment is up. Not enough of course but it is up.

My candidate had ways to pick up the pace of these things and to do things that will improve the underlying issues such as college and first home purchase that will raise up those struggling permanently.

Denying reality will not get a Dem elected, demonstrating a better America will.

[HFishbine]

39. Employment is up?

Dream on. Talk about denying reality.

[mzmolly]

20. 1. I don't shop at Walmart, 2. I would rather pay my taxes then have my

children do it.

[Eloriel]

22. Americans will get a HUGE boost with healthcare alone

I'd be thrilled to see that evil WalMart become slightly less competitive and stop driving Main Street American businesses OUT of business because they would no longer be allowed to contribute to the exploitation of workers in other countries. I think it would be one of the best things that could happen to the U.S.

Don't forget, he also pointed out that as the Clinton model showed, a balanced national budget stimulates investment and creates jobs. That brings in more tax dollars from people who are EMPLOYED.

Something everyone is forgetting. When Bush was pushing his tax cuts, Americans overwhelmingly did not want them!! When given choices, they overwhelmingly preferred more social spending to tax cuts. That's exactly what Dean plans to do.

It seems that if you remove middle class tax benefits like the child credit it will, at least in the short run, mean less money going into these families pockets and more going out to the government that doesn't need it.

Well, just how far in debt do you think the U.S. should go before you'd acknowledge that the government DOES need revenues in order to function? We're on the brink of dissolution as a nation if fiscal sanity isn't imposed -- and soon. And you think government doesn't "need" tax revenues?

Shaking my head in disbelief.

[bigtree]

26. The middle class aren't responsible for that debt

Our economy is in the toilet because Bush gave the bulk of the money to the rich. The middle class got a modest cut that was sorely needed. Taking money out of their pockets and giving it back to the government is not going to raise their incomes.

This is the old trickle down budget. Give your money back to the government and they will spend it wisely for you. Just wait, and your boat will eventually rise.

Other candidates have plans that reduce the cost of health care and grow the economy, but the governor is alone in wanting to repeal the middle-class tax cut.

[artr2]

40. Well maybe , when the Government starts spending it

on infrastructure and more people start to go back to work and tax revenues go up and money starts flowing back to the states. Your property taxes should go down. your daughter can go back to college because she got a Pell grant. Lot's of stuff will happen but you have to have the resources

[bigtree]

47. It will trickle down?

[Nazgul35]

51. the middle class are responsible...

it was our measly and pathetic sell out tax cuts that enabled the multi-billion tax cuts for the rich!!

By putting in such a paltry cut, the repugs gave the Dems cover to vote for this boondogle....and if you support the middle class "tax cuts," which was about 10% of the total amount, you support the 90% of tax cuts that went to the weathiest 1%...and no amount of denial will remove that....

I suggest that you take five minutes to recognize how much of the American tax payer pays for most of your every day existence....

Do you live in the suburbs? Do you drive a low gas millage vehicle? Do you eat food? Drink water? Heat/Cool your home? Do you drive on roads? Do you have kids? Do they go to school? Have you been over-run by the Soviets? by Al Queda? Did you get a student loan? Did you go to public school?

This is just scratching the list....

As I said below, many people love to talk about how much it is their money...but fail to recognize that it is also their debt! And you can't say otherwise....if you receive services from the government....and you do, than any surpluses or deficits are your responsibility...

[bigtree]

55. I didn't sell out

Most Democrats didn't either.

The administration gave all of the money away to those who need it less and those who have benefited the least got crumbs. T o take more from those who benefited the least will not grow the economy. Middle class Americans can spend their money better than the government can. The government needs to shift priorities and leave the middle class's money alone. They need more of the money they earn, not less.

[Nazgul35]

48. Yeah it's your money...

but it's your debt too!!!

And the argument you are using is the very same argument the Republicans used against the Dems in 1992-1993 when they raised the tax cuts that brought about the 90s' economic surge and balanced budgets....

You have credit cards I am sure, why don't you go and ask them to extend your credit when you have the card maxed out....

Also, what middle class tax cut? How are your local and state taxes? How's the money for paying for schools, first responders, how safe is your neighborhood from terrorist attacks?

At least is being honest about what is going to happen....the difference is that the other Dems are going to have to do the same thing...they just don't want to say it.......

So deluding yourself into believing that you are going to get health care, increased spending on schools, first responders, home land security without paying more in taxes is not a very realistic view of our current circumstances...

Plus, we are at war....and you should have to pay more for crying out loud!!!

Americans have become the biggest whinners on the face of the planet! At not time in our history have we ever fought a war and cut taxes!!! If you are not going to put on a uniform, the least...the very least we can do is pay a little more and consume a little less....

[bigtree]

50. I pay too much of my wages and everything else in taxes

I didn't benefit from the rich's tax cut binge. I am losing ground. Why should I give more money to the government to spend? How will that help me? I need more of my earned money, not less.

I can't expect that the government will give any of it back later.

IT'S MY MONEY!

[bigtree]

52. What about a shift in governmental priorities?

What about the cost of an unnecessary war? What about the unnecsssary deployments? What about the huge giveaways to the drug and energy industry? What about the wasted money on new nukes and new nuke plants?

Why should anyone assume that the middle class is responsible for the deficit?

[Nazgul35]

53. I am struck by the disparity

between you sig line and your attitude re: taxes...

To answer your question about how increasing things will help...I point to history, you will paying the same thing that you paid in 2000, under Bill Clinton....how did that work out for you?

With regards to those high priced items that you listed above....and since you haven't stated who you are supporting, who was in the Senate when those things got passed? Who are you proposing as a viable alternative? The same Senate Dems that let those things through?

As far as it being your money.....please!

The services you receive from this government in relation to what you actually pay is criminal!

What is your cut-off...please tell me your tax plan....how much does bigtree pay in your perfect world.....

At what point does your concern toward your own personal security end and the welfare of our country and your fellow citizens begin?

E Pluribus Unum or everyone for thereselves?

[bigtree]

54. This is not the Clinton era.

The priorities of this administration are out of wack. That's why our budget is in deficit. Not because the middle-class are getting too much of their money back from the government. They need to keep what they are getting now and then some. This government can operate just fine without picking the pockets of the middle class and spending it, if it shifts its priorities.

If we take back the giveaways to the drug companies and HMOs. If we take back the money we gave away to big energy. If we stop trying to take on the world. If we scale back our plans to militarize space. If we halt the race for new nukes and new nuke plants. If we shift the priority of our government from helping those who always get the lion's share of our tax dollars and demand that they pay their fair share, then we will have more than enough to put even more of the average taxpayer's wages back into their pockets.

You can't grow the economy by taking money away from average Americam wage earners and giving it back to the government to spend. That is trickle down economics. All boats will rise . . . eventually?

[ibegurpard]

61. How about we put taxes back where they were?

Before Bush's irresponsible tax cuts that passed with the help of a number of Democrats? There was no mandate for tax cuts. It was barely on the radar as an issue that people were concerned about.

[bigtree]

63. Incomes are down.

A repeal of middle class tax cuts will lower those incomes even further, in the face of record earnings of those over $200,000 or more. The middle class tax cuts are a giving back of these wage earners money. They earned it, they should be able to keep more of it.

There is no mandate for the reversal of the middle class tax cut. There is a mandate for tax fairness however. That should begin with a repeal of those giveaways to the rich and those that went to big industry.

Tax fairness should not involve taking more of the middle class's wages and giving them back to the government to spend.

[NashVegas]

62. That's a Very Good Question

I think there would be a few variables that need be considered in the mix. Most of these come down to planning on the city/county/state level.

ie, if the towns & states are having to raise taxes and such to make up for the lack of federal funding, if Dean's tax plan is enacted, the same officials who raised those taxes are going to have to agree to lower them back down once the federal flow is turned back on.

I think that's how it's going to look across the board. We couldn't afford to have any local officials assuming they could keep the newly inflated rates in the same place. Kinda like how so many of the states diverted their Tobacco lawsuit money to everything but prevention programs.

[bigtree]

65. There is no guarantee that states will lower taxes in response to anything

the federal government does. That is a trickle down theory. Take average wage earner's money, give it back to the government and let them distribute it. Then states will follow by lowering state and local rates? That is a lot to trust. At any rate it would be years before states saw any decrease in liabilities. Still no guarantee that anyone's taxes would be lowered in any individual state to offset a repeal of existing tax benefits.

[MercutioATC]

75. Ohio's lowered taxes in the past. It DOES happen.

If if they aren't lowered, there's less of a need for additional levies for schools abd public services (and less of a need to pass renewal levies) which would result in a net rediction in taxes.

[nathan_avery1985]

66. Prices can go up, fine, but middle class taxes shouldn't

Don't forget the Bush tax plan included a $400 per child tax credit. If we get rid of the upper part of the plan, what's wrong with giving middle class families a little more money?

[bigtree]

68. I wonder about the assumption that all foreign goods go to Wal-Mart

Or that an increase in the price of these goods will only affect the retail market.

Surely if you effect retail goods then there will be a negative effect on other markets that the American people rely on.

[MercutioATC]

77. Because we NEED that money to give the middle class what they demand.

...healthcare, education,a balanced budget, lower local and state taxes, infrastructure and jobs. Hey, if the middle class is willing to forget about these things, they can keep the $400/kid.

Just because the middle class got thrown a bone in Bush's tax "cuts" doesn't mean they deserve to keep it at the expense of our national fiscal health. They were O.K. paying it under Clinton and they'll survive it under Dean. Actually, they'll do much better because they get health care as part of the deal (for a MAXIMUM of 7.5% of adjusted gross income).

[many a good man]

67. Short term effects tolerable; think long term

Dean's stance of repealing Bush*'s irresponsible tax cuts is his starting position in the inevitable bargain he will have to make with Congress. It solidifies his credentials as a truth-telling, fiscally-responsible reformer.

However, the small boost to consumer demand created by the middle class portion of the tax cuts (along with the mortgage refinance boom) is the only thing holding up our feeble economy. I think Dean must phase out the middle class tax cuts SLOWLY over a number of years to avoid a collapse in aggregate demand. While they're at it they should restructure the tax system to make it fairer, by keeping the marriage penalty repeal and some of the child tax credit.

Tax cuts DO have a stimulative effect on the economy if they are used judiciously and temporarily. Bush*'s tax cuts were neither. The vast majority of cuts went to the income bracket with the lowest propensity to consume and therefore did not spark demand as much as it could have.

WalMart price increases: it will probably take several years before these kick in and they'll be minor. Tax hikes and price increases aren't really a problem if they are offset by rising wages and more jobs. The difficulty is getting from here to there. Consumers profit in the short term by goods produced by cheap labor abroad, but suffer from a loss in jobs and lower wages. There is no Clinton era Tech Boom around the corner. The problems faced by our economy are structural and there is no magic cure that can fix things overnight.

"...less money going into these families pockets and more going out to the government that doesn't need it."

The government needs revenue desperately. Much more is at stake than your family being a couple hundred dollars poorer next year. Krugman estimates the government is currently underfunded by a factor of 25% in the long term. The debt problem makes our economy vulnerable to many more things that are out of our control, and potentially could ruin everybody, investors and workers alike.

Dr. Dean's straight talk is harsh medicine that is absolutely necessary to get our economy back on a sustainable track. We must put ourselves in a much stronger position if we want to be able to sustain ourselves against some of the major blows that are awaiting us a few years down the road; namely higher energy prices and the retirement of the baby boomers...

[bigtree]

69. We could recover that money by shifting priorities.

Why do we assume that middle America is to blame for the deficit?

If we take back the giveaways to the drug companies and HMOs; if we take back the money we gave away to big energy; if we stop trying to take on the world; if we scale back our plans to militarize space. If we halt the race for new nukes and new nuke plants; if we shift the priority of our government from helping those who always get the lion's share of our tax dollars and demand that they pay their fair share.

Then we will have more than enough to put even more of the average taxpayer's wages back into their pockets without passing the hat again to the middle class.

[many a good man]

70. True, but...

The middle class is not to blame for the fiscal mess we find ourselves in, except insofar that we continue to elect politicians who promise us irresponsible tax cuts.

Because of its sheer size, taxing the middle class just a tiny bit higher will probably bring in more revenue than all those things you mention. Remember, Americans have the lowest taxes of any industrialized country. We also get the lowest amount of benefits because of our immense military budget and all those other things you listed. The middle class is not completely to blame for the deficit, yet we all have to pitch in together to pull ourselves out of this mess.

Let me also repeat, the decline in living standards is more due to falling wages than from the higher taxes that would occur from repealing Bush*'s tax cuts. You are correct, though, because taxes on corporations and the wealthiest 10% are also much lower now than they were 30 years ago. I would agree with you completely, its just that our debt is in such terrible shape...

[bigtree]

71. I recall that they actually elected Gore

But I digress.

[zulchzulu]

78. No

Since Dean will be doing infomercials for some pyramid scheme this time next year, there will be no effect.

You might get ripped off on the product he's selling at the time, so consider this a consumer tip.