from 2003, ancient words:
"Regarding slashing of social programs, what exactly did Dean do in his 11 years in office?
1) as of the year 2000, Vermont was rated 2nd best in the nation for the quality of medical care provided to Medicare beneficiaries
2) as of the year 2003, Vermont was ranked 3rd best in the nation for prescription benefits provided to Medicare beneficiaries
3) signed into law managed care consumer protections that are among the toughest in the nation
4) established the "Success by Six" program, in which Health care providers, social service agencies and others cooperate to connect parents with resources ranging from job training to parenting classes
5) overhauled Vermont's traditional system of paying for public schools with local property taxes, shifting funds from rich towns to poor towns through a "sharing pool," sparking an explosion in education spending,which has been up by 40% since 1997
6) ensured that virtually every child under 18 and more than 90 percent of adults are eligible for health coverage.
7) created the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee to identify strengths and weaknesses in the community response to domestic violence
8) established initiatives which included mandatory work requirements and lifetime maximum benefits, but were balanced by their support of children and their working parents with health care, child care, and job training (more at:
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/ngachn/child~36.ht... )
9) increased investment on Child Care Services by 176% since 1991
10) instituted the first state protocol for abuse investigations. In return, Vermont saw a 45% decline in physical and sexual abuse of children. This included a 64% decline in physical abuse victims ages 0-3 and a 43% decline in physical abuse victims ages 0-6.
11) increased human services funding by 33%, and education funding by 25%
I could go on. Based on a record like this, I find it hard to perceive him as a bungling idiot who intends to randomly slash social programs. What he HAS done consistently is show a willingness to tighten the budget for a purpose: balancing it. We're not talking about "starving the beast" here, or making efforts to permanently cut programs. If anything, it seems to me he has a record for making short-term sacrifice in order to achieve a sustainable economy with adequate funding for social programs.
A few specific claims were made in the original post: "Throughout the 1990s, Dean's cuts in state aid to education ($6 million), retirement funds for teachers and state employees ($7 million), health care ($4 million), welfare programs earmarked for the aged, blind and disabled ($2 million), Medicaid benefits ($1.2 million) and more, amounted to roughly $30 million."
Did the cuts in state funding for education coincide with #5 posted above, for example? Or was it a short term cut made which he later corrected for starting in 1997? Either way, spending on education is up 40% since 1997. The author states he cut retirement funds for teachers and state employees. On the other hand, "signed into law agency fee protection for the state employees union, thereby providing union security for state employees" (
http://www.nwaforchange.org/nwa/downloads/Election_Guid... )
In any event, based on these observations, I think it fair to predict Dean would not run rampant slashing and burning social programs in the presidency.
Regarding "regressive" taxation:
1) again, when Dean entered office, the highest tax bracket in Vermont was paying the highest state income taxes in the country.
2) he cut income tax twice, removed the sales tax on most clothing, and reduced the state's long-term debt.
3) he raised the state's minimum wage twice during 11 years in office.
4) he created tax incentives to attract and keep new companies.
5) he created 41,000 jobs
In effect, he did one hell of a remarkable job for Vermont's economy, and tax breaks like eliminating the sales tax on most clothing is the sort of thing that helps the average working man. Some of the benefits he offered to the average working man aren't necessarily apparent at first glance.
On Roe v Wade and Women's Issues, during his governorship:
1) he appointed more women to office than any other state governor
2) he signed an executive order enhancing state assistance to victims of domestic violence
3) he challenged the term "partial birth abortion" from a medical perspective, saying that it is a "code word" for extremism
4) pregnancy rates for young teens dropped 49%.
5) Vermont was the first state to institute a statewide protocol for abuse investigations. In return, Vermont saw a 45% decline in physical and sexual abuse of children. This included a 64% decline in physical abuse victims ages 0-3 and a 43% decline in physical abuse victims ages 0-6
6) He has consistently, irrefutably argued that what a woman does with her body is her own decision and none of the government's business.
So, Roe v Wade may not be the litmus test he relies on, but it seems he is willing to fight for women's issues in ways that actually work. What about this is there to criticize? One poster did raise an important issue, concern that stance on Roe v Wade should be the litmus test for judicial appointments. That's valid. Unfortunately, I've had little luck tracking down info on his judicial appointments, other than their names (Jeffrey L. Amestoy 1997, Marilyn S. Skoglund 1997) and un-related issues.
I really can not stress this enough, Dean takes care of kids. If you don't like it, ok. Dean puts everything on the line for kids. I like that."
It's been 3 years since I looked back at those words, but, yeah, Dean is on our side. He's one of the good guys. And, he's not selling anyone out. I'll bet dollars for doughnuts he could care less about the word "marriage." He wants individuals, their partners, their families to have rights written into law.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
