Candidate Review
The
Bush Tax Cuts
Some of you maybe concerned at the negative tone of these
comments. I can appreciate your sentiments; however, I felt it was important to
underline that Tax Cuts are seen as positive in America. Being against Tax Cuts
is a bit like being against free Ice Cream. Any Democrat who takes power will
have to raise taxes somehow (hopefully by cutting off some corporate loopholes,
but I'm a crazy dreamer). Whoever we get in office needs to articulate why the
Bush Tax Cuts are negative.
General
Wesley Clark
And we wrap up with some comments from General Wesley Clark,
from a speech given October
22, 2003.
"George W. Bush told America we really could have
it all: massive tax cuts for the wealthiest people; lots of spending on
education; Social Security, saved for another generation; and big budget
surpluses as far as the eye could see.
FDR ran on the New Deal. Harry Truman promised a Fair Deal.
George W. Bush ran on the Free Lunch.
The Free Lunch, it turns out, was a bunch of baloney.
That's what Mr. Bush campaigned on-the free lunch. He told
Americans we could have everything he promised, and his administration would
still run a surplus. In 1999, when Mr. Bush started running for President, he
said, and I quote, "We can show Washington how to handle a budget
surplus."
Unfortunately, that's one promise he kept. Just like he
said he would, President Bush has frittered away the greatest budget surplus in
American history.
But there were other promises Mr. Bush didn't keep. When he
took office, it became clear he didn't have any plans for paying down the
national debt; he didn't have any plans for saving Social Security; and he
didn't have any plans to pay for his education program.
All he had was his massive tax cut. Three of them,
actually. One after the other, each benefiting most those who didn't need it -
the wealthiest Americans."
Former
Governor Howard Dean
This bit is from Howard Dean's big
economic speech. Its pretty good; pity nobody is going to bother reading
it.
"Republicans claim to be helping average Americans
with their tax cuts.
But let's look at the facts. The average wage earner did
get a few hundred dollars back. But the refund didn't come for free.
President Bush never told you about the "Bush
Tax". He never mentioned that over the next six years the typical American
family will take on $52,000 more in its share of the national debt. That's a
part of the "Bush Tax". But there's a lot more.
Take a look at your property taxes. They probably went up.
In New Hampshire, property taxes went up an average of $270 per family last
year. That's part of the "Bush Tax". Or look at your state budget. Is
it in crisis? In most states, it is. That's part of the "Bush Tax",
too.
Getting fewer services and paying more for things like
state college tuitions or special education that's the consequence of the
"Bush Tax".
The "Bush Tax" is huge many times greater than
most people's refunds. And it'll be here for a long time to come. Just add the
"Bush Tax" to all the other things the President never told us."
Senator
John Edwards
Here are some extended comments by John Edwards on the effect of
President Bush's Tax Cuts, from a speech given on
November 12, 2002.
" . . . these challenges demanded responses, not
excuses, and this administration's economic policy has been a parody of the
responsibility ethic. Faced with scandals like Enron, they were dragged to the
altar of reform, they accepted a large increase in SEC funding while the
cameras were clicking, and then they pulled back that increase once lobbyists
came running. They have ignored skyrocketing drug costs and health costs that
are choking business's ability to create jobs. In the international arena, where
the world looks to us for guidance, they have sent conflicting signals to
countries like Brazil that have caused real harm. Finally, they have not just
presided over, they have led, the fastest squandering of tax dollars in
Washington's storied history of squandering.
Make no mistake: the surplus wasn't killed by accident;
this was premeditated. It was a deliberate plan to shortchange most Americans'
future so a very few people could get a tax cut. A supposedly conservative
administration has done more than anybody else to make fiscal discipline the
last priority in Washington. They didn't stop to think about expanding
long-term opportunity and improving skills for the middle class. They didn't
stop to think about strengthening Social Security for the retirement of the
baby boom. They just threw fiscal discipline to the winds.
But fiscal discipline isn't just a nice idea - it is an
absolute requirement for long-term growth. Out-of-control deficits means the
government competes with you for the capital you need to innovate, expand, and
create jobs. Out-of control deficits means interest rates will soar when the
economy starts to pick up, dragging it right back down. Out-of-control deficits
means future retirees will have to fend for themselves because we've worsened
the coming Social Security crisis and spent their money. And out-of-control
deficits means that America may not be at full economic strength when we have
to deal with some future crisis, like 9/11 and the war on terrorism. It is time
to restore fiscal discipline to Washington for good.
Now, it is impossible to talk about fiscal discipline in a
serious way without addressing the $2 trillion elephant in the room. The
election is over - and I hope that people in both parties will be willing to
say what a very few of us have been saying for months but everyone knows is
true. We have to address the Bush tax cut.
I believe we should put off the tax cut that President Bush
gave to the most fortunate Americans. Whether or not we could afford it when it
was originally passed, it is now clear that it is unsustainable."
Representative
Dick Gephardt
Here is Gephardt’s discussion of how the Tax Cuts hurt
Americans, from a speech
given April 23, 2003.
"Here's how we beat George Bush in 2004 — we simply
tell the truth. This president says we need tax cuts. But his budget cut
funding for children's hospitals, disease control, rural health care, and
professional medical training. He even cut 11 billion dollars in funding for
public and teaching hospitals — the health care providers for the majority of
poor and uninsured patients. That's not health care. That's someone who
couldn't care less.
We have a story to tell about George W. Bush.
Under this president, a billion dollars was cut from health
care for children in poverty. And he's created a fiscal crisis in almost every
state — forcing states to slash Medicaid, devastating health care programs for
the poor and people with disabilities. Medicaid is the lifeline for millions of
Americans. Just because George Bush is sinking the economy doesn't mean our
most vulnerable should have to go down with it. We have a story to tell about
George W. Bush.
George Bush passed his 'No Child Left Behind' education
bill, but then cut the funding to pay for it by six billion dollars. We have a
story to tell.
He's cut funding for after-school programs, teacher
training, school safety. All the while he's trying to shift what few dollars
are left into private schools. This president isn't leaving a child behind.
He's leaving the whole class behind with them. We have a story to tell."
Senator
John Kerry
Here is Senator John Kerry's analysis of President Bush's
handling of the economy, from a speech
on August 28, 2003
"But instead of acting to secure prosperity for all
or even a measure of basic fairness, George Bush has brought back the days of
deficits, debt, and doubt. He has put the interests of his buddies and big shot
campaign contributors ahead of the people he passes by in his motorcade. And
rain or shine, surplus or deficit, George Bush has one answer for our economy:
special interest tax giveaways that are unwarranted, unaffordable, and unfair.
We need action and leadership because we’re not just in a
temporary downturn. America is in a fight for our economic future. As I travel
this country, it is clear to me that the American people know it even if some
politicians don’t. And they know that America won’t win a fight for the future
with the worn-out policies of the past."
Senator
Dennis Kucinich
Two quotes from Representative Kucinch
From a statement by Dennis
Kucinich in reaction to President Bush's speech in Ohio on Labor Day.
"The President's 'leave-no-billionaire-behind' tax
cut to the wealthy will do nothing to help the average Ohioan. The recently
passed tax cut will continue a trend advocated by this Administration of
accelerating wealth upwards. The first 60 percent of Ohio taxpayers will only
see a cut of $380 in total over the next four years. But, the richest 1% of
Ohioans will be rewarded with tax cuts worth $52,240 on average over the next
four years.
Already, this Administration's policies have led to cuts in
spending on important domestic needs such as education, health care, veterans'
benefits, child care and led to sky high state budget deficits. Ohio, alone, is
facing a projected state budget deficit of $2 billion in FY '04."
From a
speech to the Democratic National Committee Western Caucus
Corporations should be compelled to pay a fair share of taxes.
If corporations shift profits offshore to avoid paying taxes, they should not
be permitted to operate in the United States. The decrease in corporate tax
responsibility is an indication of the rise of corporate power. According to
the Institute for Policy Studies, after the 2002 tax cuts, corporations will
pay in taxes an amount equivalent to 1.3% of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product.
In the 1950s they paid taxes of 4.5% of the US GDP. Corporations have less
regulations, pay less taxes and yet have greater influence. (Can there be any
clearer indication of the urgency of full public financing of our elections?)
Senator
Joe Lieberman
[This is] from Joe Lieberman, as you will already have guessed.
From a
speech on October 18, 2002 at the NASDAQ MarketSite.
"Last year, with the storm clouds of stagnation
gathering and the warnings of deficits growing, President Bush rammed through a
tax cut that was far more expensive than we could afford and far less effective
than our economy required. In doing so, he busted the budget, locked us in a
fiscal straitjacket, and limited our ability to take any other growth-spurring
measures.
There's nothing wrong with tax cuts. I have supported many
of them over the years and will recommend some more today. But there is
something wrong when tax cuts become not a policy tool but an ideological
obsession, when one kind of tax cut is reflexively treated as the cure for
every economic illness, regardless of its cost or effect, and when that one
kind of tax cut substitutes, as it has under President Bush, for anything
resembling a genuine economic recovery or growth plan.