John Kerry Sends Letter to Howard Dean Asking Him to Reverse Course on Mid

[Nicholas_J]

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.

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

[unfrigginreal]

1. Dean to Kerry - Take a Hike! n/t

[JohnKleeb]

2. at least he didnt say you suck blah blah

Gotta give Kerry that.

[coralrf]

8. I doubt Dean is dumb enough to say that.....but

that letter is going out all over in the AM and its intent: Dean is not that Liberal in fact he is quite regressive, is well illustrated in it. The image of Dean shifting tax burdens, whether he is actually going to do it or not, will be made here. Dean asked for it. He has been the most negative of all the Dem candidates and now he is up against a few big boys that he has pissed off.

Dean fizzles in 30 days. Too bad. Had he kept it clean and on target he would have been a great candidate.

[Cha]

11. Oh you are so off base!

Dean has only spoken the truth ...too bad if some can't handle the truth.

I smell backfire.

[Andromeda]

67. That's just nuts!

Dean has not been a negative candidate. He has been the most honest and I guess some people just have hard time with the truth. If anybody is going to fizzle it's going to be Kerry who, I don't mind saying, has to be a bit desparate to grandstand in that way.

[PAMod]

68. Fizzle? You haven't been paying attention, have you?

I just hope Senator Kerry and others fall in line if Dean is the nominee.

Does Kerry think he will pick up the people that will take these types of tactics to heart? That may be faulty thinking on his part.

[molly]

69. Dean did himself in

he alone is responsible. I have seen 2 polls indicating that both Clark and Kerry could beat w if elections were held now. I have not seen that poll regarding Dean.

He has run an "in-your-face" angry campaign and it is totally repulsive. His supporters have advanced his campaign agenda and that's all folks!

[PAMod]

83. Uh, the poll that has Clark & Kerry "leading" Dumbya shows

Dean tied with him too.

Let's see how repulsive Dean is when the votes fly.

Just remember to fall in line, please.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

46. Kerry to Dean - OK! I love to hike!

"Teresa and I go for great long walks in Idaho (where we have a home) under the mountains. I'm an avid windsurfer, kite-boarder, snowboarder, hiker, you name it. If there's wind, water, snow, trails, I want to be there. I want to taste it, feel it. I crave nature. Even on the campaign trail, I'll try to take a moment to go for a walk by the water in places like Seattle or Chicago. "
Grist Magazine interview with Democratic presidential contender John Kerry

[Demobrat]

3. Is this for real?

If Kerry thinks he's right, why doesn't he just run on the issue and let the voters take care of the rest? What is the point of asking Dean to change a losing position? Is he acknowledging that Dean will be the next president? Or is he just trying to provoke a response? I don't think I've ever heard of one candidate asking another to change a position. Am I nuts, or is this really weird?

[wtmusic]

5. No, this is really weird

Really gutsy and totally inappropriate. Da Noiv! Howard's a big boy now, he can take care of himself.

[Cha]

10. It seems "weird" to me but I'm New to politics...Since 2000...

and only on DU since Sept 26,2002!

[EagleEye]

4. Moronic

Kerry is desparate. Instead of writing Dean a letter why doesn't he write his withdrawl speech?

[wtmusic]

6. Q. Or call him on the phone?

A. Because then it wouldn't be a PR gimmick.

[dean4america]

7. the kerry campaign

is looking pathetic. Dean should respond by breaking out the old middle finger.

[Cha]

9. No No No! We mustn't resort to playground tactics!

Usually when things like this are done they have a way of backfiring on the perpetrator!

Maybe it will clear the air on exactly what Dean wants to do for our Country!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. "things like this"

You mean informing the voters about Dean's positions? What an under-handed tactic! Serious 'bashing' going on. lol

[Cha]

33. No I mean like not giving them the finger! Everyone can know

Dean positions by going to http://deanforamerica.com and click on issues and get his position on the Issues! :-)

[Demobrat]

13. Whatever Dean does about it, it will be with class.

I think he likes it up there on the high road.

[Cha]

18. It's been class the whole way....his whole life!

Sure there have been pits like in any other life but on the whole..real class!

[Nicholas_J]

86. Its been class

Breake for the upper class...is whole career.

[quinnox]

12. This is a master stroke by Kerry

I read that Dean has started the beginnings of a hint of a flip flop on the middle class taxes issue. This way, if Dean does reverse course, it will be a killer blow for Kerry to say I am glad Dean changed his mind after my letter.

This puts Dean in an impossible position, either stick with his repeal all the taxes position and keep taking heat for it, or flip flop and walk into this trap.

[EagleEye]

14. Lets see, Dean repeal the tax cuts Kerry voted against?

How does that hurt Dean? The tax cuts were a bad idea then and are even worse now.

[Nicholas_J]

63. The Bush tax cuts were the most popular issue of the 200 elections

Every Democrat had to come up with a democratic version

Every time Dean has made a decision that was contrary to past wisdom about fixing an economic situation, he stated that the times were and economic condition were different like this:

The Progressives said their proposal was designed to mirror the surcharges adopted during that last budget crisis, but they have not proposed an expiration date for the new surcharges.

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.

Dean also said the situation Vermont faced today was much different from the problem 10 years ago. Dean, who became governor early in that crisis, pointed out that the state had a $65 million deficit and no reserve funds. Now, Vermont does not have a deficit and has about $100 million in various “rainy day” funds.

http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/41293.html

Problem is, that repealing the Bush tax cuts for the middle class will not reverse the other economic effects of the cuts. They will not result in the staes immediately or even EVER repealing the increases at the local level. SInce the states are in deficit now as well as the fedeal government, even re-financing the states at pre tax cut levels will not allow the states sufficient revenues to get out of their deficits.Dena knows this but Dean has ALWAYS been willing to tax the middle class at higher rates than the rich, and a tax study of Vermont from 1990 to 2000 shows that Vermont taxation became more regressive during Deans years as governor:



Vermont’s Tax Code: No Breaks for the Poor and Middle Class
When all Vermont taxes are totaled up, the study found that:

The richest Vermont taxpayers—with average incomes of $686,000—pay 9.7% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes before accounting for the tax savings from federal itemized deductions. After the federal offset, they pay only 7.1%.

Middle-income taxpayers in Vermont—those earning between $27,000 and $44,000—pay 9.8% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes before the federal deduction offset and 9.5% after the offset—much more than what the rich pay.


# Vermont families earning less than $16,000—the poorest fifth of Vermont non-elderly taxpayers—pay 10% of their income in Vermont state and local taxes, one and half times the share the wealthiest Vermonters pay.

“Vermont’s income tax is not progressive enough to offset the regressivity of its sales and excise taxes,” McIntyre said. “Taxes ought to be based on people’s ability to pay them, which means that the share of income paid in taxes should rise as income grows, not fall as is the case in Vermont.”

Tax Regressivity Has Grown Since 1989

The study also examined the impact of changes in the regressivity of Vermont taxes since1989, when the last cycle of state government shortfalls began...


http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:fJRaEEEPn3gJ:www.itepnet.org/wp2000/vt%2520pr.pdf+Vermont+Taxation+regressive+Tax+institute&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Sorry, Dean is just Bullshitting again, and this lack of awareness of his policies and the effects they will have on the middle class are going to be expossed, mose people in New Hampshire do not support Deans stance, and most people are not yet aware that he plans on raising their taxes in this way. This is going to be repeated over and over again until Kerry and Shaheen let EVERY resident of New Hampshire know what Dean plans for them economically.

Essentially Deans repeal of the tax cuts will be more economically disatrous for the middle class than even Bush's actions...and as for Deans promises for Universal Health care, lets look at his promises for Vermont:

Dean promises health coverage for all by 2002
October 4, 2000

By FREDERICK BEVER Vermont Press Bureau

BURLINGTON - Gov. Howard Dean on Tuesday unveiled an ambitious goal for Vermont's health care system - enactment by 2002 of a plan that would lead to health insurance coverage for every state resident.

Appearing at a press conference at the Burlington Community Health Center, Dean said he would build on proposals expected from a $1.3 million, yearlong study of Vermont's health care system aimed at finding ways to get insurance to Vermonters who currently lack it.

"It will allow us to look at the infrastructure essentially for going to universal health care for all Vermonters," Dean said. "It's a complicated subject; $1.3 million is a lot of money, and I think we ought to be able to figure out how to solve the problem. ... We're going to look at some innovative things."

Those innovations might include a state subsidy to help small employers buy health insurance for their workers, or the expansion of federal or state health insurance programs. Although the study will emphasize building on existing programs, it may also include consideration of more radical changes, such as the "high risk pool" and "single-payer system" advocated, respectively, by Dean's Republican and Progressive opponents.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/State/Story/13593.html

Well, last time I looked there were still over 9 percent of Veermonters without health insurance, and reports from Vermont show that Dean increased health care spending to over 2 billion dollars, but only decreased the rate of the unisured by 8/10ths of one percent:

Table 2 – Estimates of the Percent Uninsured in Vermont, 1987-2001
CPS

Year VT /
State
1987 8%
1988 10. 97%
1989 8.8%
1990 9.5%
1991 12.7%


1992 9.5%
1993 11.9%
1994 8.6%
1995 13.0%
1996 11.0%
1997 9.5%
1998 9.9%
1999 11.1%
2000 8.6%
2001 9.6%


From: The Uninsured in Vermont

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:FzuHwx-xM74J:www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/Vermont%2520Uninsured.pdf+%22The+Uninsured+in+Vermont%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Now lets average the Pre Dean Years 1987-1991

1987 9.8%
1988 10. 97%
1989 8.8%
1990 9.5%
1991 12.7%

Average of 10.35 percent:

Now the Dean Years:

1992 9.5%
1993 11.9%
1994 8.6%
1995 13.0%
1996 11.0%
1997 9.5%
1998 9.9%
1999 11.1%
2000 8.6%
2001 9.6%


10.27 percent.

Big increase in the percentage of the uninsured in Vermont as a result of Dean’s health care initiatives. Less than one percent.

Dean managed to increase the health care budget to monumental proportions, to nearly 2 billion dollars out of a 3.5 billion dollar budget, yet had only reduced the percentage of people without coverage by eight tenths of one percent. About 4800 more people covered. Most of this by shifting coverage to children, and not by increasing overall coverage. Because it is cheaper to cover children.


ANd lets look at Deans final action for his budget of 2002, in which he ordered large cuts to medicaid adn other healtrh care programs:


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.

And even those making less who are covered under the state’s standard VScript program will see their costs rise.

http://timesargus.com/Legislature/Story/41169.html

Dean is notorious for making promises he does not keep

[VermontDem2004]

70. Wow 10.35

to 10.27, big difference! Also considering the fact that the averages were taken 4 years before Dean while Dean was in office for 8 years. I want to see you keep up a successful average like that, let's look at the lowest. My state's uninsured rate is probaly around 25.37 or something, good job Dean! Thanks for posting this Nicholas, your posts are too long so I don't read it all but this caught my eye.

[Nicholas_J]

90. Exactly

Comparing the records of Care before Dean, and after Dean.

Deans record for lowering the rate of those without health care therefore was piss-poor

Dean started with an extremely low rate orf unisured, and even with that great benefit, couldnt manage to lower the rate by even ONE percent.

THe figures cover 5 years prior to Dean, and from 1992 to 2001 which is TEN YEARS, not eight.

In ten years Dean didnt do anything, and for several years the situation was WORSE under Dean than.

The stats do not indicate that Dean did a good job.

They indicate that he did barely anything at all.

It amazes me how Dean supporters can interpret such a dismal record as a positive.

P.S.

validate Stats for your state please.

Then go back and compare records for past and see how much of an increase or decrease there was.

In Florida, even a republican has outperfoemed Dean percentage wize.


And Every other state in New England did better than Dean but Connecticut which did the same.


The averages for oter states that did better than Vermont during the same period:

Table 1 – States with lowest uninsured rate, 1999-20011

State % uninsured

Rhode Island* 7.2%

Minnesota* 7.8%

Iowa 8.0%Wisconsin*

8.5%Pennsylvania

8.7%Massachusetts*

8.7%Missouri* 8.8%

New Hampshire 9.0%

Delaware* 9.5%

Nebraska 9.6%

Vermont* 9.7%

Connecticut 9.7%

Hawaii* 9.7%

Michigan 9.9%

Dean didnt do much at all.

Other than try to pump up his image, by making unsubstantiated claims about what he did in Vermont. Which was nothing as well. Changes to medicaid under CLinton would have actually resulted in a better rate of uninsured if Dean had not beccome Governor, and someone who was not so intent on cutting budgets were in office or if Dean followed his own party's recommedatin to not roll back the income tax increases started under Governor Snelling which got rid of Vermonts deficit.

Which is why you see improvements in the rate of the uninsured until the year after Dean rolled back the tax rates, adn then had to start cutting the budgets to social programs in order to keep deficits from occurring again.

In 1994, the lat year of Snelling Tax increases, Vermont had its LOWEST level of unisured. Dean repeals Snelling progressive income taxe, in 1995 the rate of uninsured jumos to the HIGHEST level between 1987 and 2001, 13 percent.

Dean inherited the deficit, but he also inherited the plan designed to get rid of it. Again, Dean taking the reposnsibility for doing nothing.

[Nicholas_J]

15. It is....

Lots of local polls in N.H. show that overwhelming numbers of Democrats and Independents oppose the idea of repealing all of the cuts, and not many of N.H.'s average citizens are aware of Deans stance on this. Kerry is making it crystal clear. Shaheen is already up and active and pointing put Deans flaws to her state.

[EagleEye]

16. There was no middle class tax cut.

All the local and state service went up, there is less miney for college tuition and assistance, interest rates are climbing. The tax cuts were a bad idea then and are a worse idea now.

[Nicholas_J]

58. Yup

And if you repeal the taxcuts, you will be paying all of those higher taxes and costs, as well as losing the money that came with the cuts. It is sheer bullshit that is being touted that the middle class didnt see anything from the cuts, they did, they were just eaten up by the local taxes. If the federal government repeals the tax cuts, the average middle class family of 4 making 40 grand a year will lose two thousand bucks, but their is NOTHING that the federal government can do to repeal tyhe local taxes and increses in tution and such, so you are hit with DOUBLE taxation by the repeal.

[MercutioATC]

71. Some families MAY lose $2k...and they will gain affordable healthcare,

better-funded schools and better infrastructure.These same middle class families seemed to do O.K. under Clinton. All we are doing is returning the Federal tax structure to the way it was under Clinton (and giving people healthcare, schols and infrastructure at the same time).

Besides, the average middle class family of 4 is NOT saving $2k. I'm sure that SOME families of 4 did same $2k, but if these claims are going to be made, I think we need to see exactly what variables result in the $2k number.

There's nothing wrong with returning us to a Clinton-era tax structure, especially if we're gaining real benefits. It's true that the state and local levels will remain unchanged for a time, but if history is any indicator, they will adjust over the next few years (Ohio actually lowered state taxes years ago when it was sitting on a huge surplus). Better-funded schools won't necessariy give bact the recent levies that have passed, but they won't need to ask for further levies for some time. City governments will find more Federal funding available for construction projects, lessening the local burden (and helping to keep city taxes lower).

For what we're getting, I think we can live with giving up a 2 1/2-year-old tax cut.

[Nicholas_J]

87. Will they...

Dean has failed to keep every promise he made (three separate times ) to provide universal health care in Vermont, even threatening to veto single payer legislation in 1994 if they dared to try to pass it. Every time promised and then welched on it, he gave the excuse of balancing the budget making it too unafordable. There is not reason to beleive that Dean will keep his promises this time.

Actually, the 2,000 figure is based on the 40,000 with 2 kids. Average American family, 2 parents 2 kids

Some Middle class is considered to fall between 30,000 and 90,000, dependent on status. The actual figures for the median familly return from the Bush tax cuts was 3,000. A family making the top end 90,000 would have seen something in the area of 5,000.

Dean is simply lying, as most of his supporters are younger and unmarried, and saw little in returns.

According to the AARP the Bush Tax cuts for 2002 alone gave a family of 4, earning 50,000 dollars a year 1122 dollars a more a year. Where a single person earning the same amount only saw 413 dollars.

Dean misrepresents the tax cuts to his base of followers, to get them to spread his typical misrepresntation of facts.

Dean has NO intention of keeping his health care promises, as his past performance would indicate. The BEST indicator of what a politician is going to do in the furture is to look at what they have done in the past. This is most applicable to Dean, as he is extremely stubborn, and has never been willing to compromise.

Dean has the highest record of Vetoing legislation than any other Vermont Governor in its history.All of it Democratic sponsored or Progressive sponsored. In general, Republicans got all they asked for and more under Dean.

He using the exact same political promise techinque he used as Governor. In Vermont, jhe was re-elected so many times, not because he kept his promises, but becaue he didnt, his actual policies greatly appealing to rich Repblicans in the state of Vermont.

Most of Deans opposition to the single payer plan he kept rejecting can be easily attributed to the fact that Dean raised more money from the Health Insurance industry and Pharmaceutical Industry alone than ALL of the people running against him raised for their enire campaign.

One Pharmaceutical company contributed more money to Dean than Dean could raise from the citizens of Montpelior.

[MercutioATC]

103. So Vermont's health care plan doesn't cover more people than, say,

Ohio's? Whether it's 100% or 96% or 90%, more people in Vermont have access to health care than in any other state that I know of. I'd say that spoke volumes when you question what Dean would do on a national basis.

The average U.S. family is NOT 2 parents and 2 kids.

http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/family/family.html

[Nicholas_J]

118. It depends on what BASE Dean started with.

The year before Dean was elected, the rate of uninsured was 9.5 percent
His first year in office, goes up to 12.7. Dean is actively cutting social services. Next, the Snelling tax increases go into effect. The Budget deficit disappears, and by 1994 the unisured rate is the lowest in the past 7 years. Dean goes fiscally conservative, rolls back the Snelling cuts, 1995, the unisured rate goes up to 13 percent, the highest rate of ununsures in the entire period between 1987 and 2001.

The fdact that Vermonters have NO MORE health insurance than they had prior to Dean coming to office and that the best thing that anyone can say about Dean is that when the legislature STOPPED him from cutting programs and taxes, the rate of uninsured stayed low, and everytime Dean got into the mix with his fiscal conservatism, the rates of uninsured skyrocketed.

in 1991 : 12. 7 %;

1993 : 11.9 %;

1995: 13%;

1996: 11.1% and

1999: 11.1 %,

Vermont had higher rates of uninsured than in the years 1987-1990. The highest rate of unisured before Dean 10.7 percent came to office.

This was the result of Deans squables to CUT coverage in Vermont, and he just did not always win his fights with the libeal democrats in the legislature.

How many years was Dean in office. 11.

5 of them he made things worse. and in only ONE year did he do better than the years before he came into office.

Sorry, that is NOT much of a success story.

[MercutioATC]

121. You DO realize that we're still talking about a better rate than any other

state (no link to back that one up...if you can prove otherwise, I'll graciously acquiesce). Show me a state that has a better mix of healthcare/economy/environment. I'm not saying that it's all Dean's doing. Programs existed before he took office. He did have quite a few good years, economically, to work with. His stewardship, however, allowed the programs to continue to succeed and Vermont is STILL one of the 10 or 12 states that isn't operating with a defecit. It's among the best (if not THE best) in the availability of health care. Vermont has set aside land to be held in trust for the people...land that will never be developed.

No, Dean's not perfect. Dean's not especially liberal. Dean is a pragmatist, not an idealist.

He is, however, what an increasing number of Americans want as a leader. I'm not asking you to change your mind about him. I am, however, asking you to at least acknowledge the successes of Vermont under Dean's stewardship as compared to the rest of the country.

[peaceandjustice]

76. the middle class?

Kerry supports keeping tax cuts in place for families who make as much as 200,000 a year. How are they middle class?

[KaraokeKarlton]

19. You sure don't know much about NH, do you

But then you don't know anything about Vermont, either, so I should have expected as much.

NH's property taxes have gone up over $100 million since Bush's tax cuts. Not only that, but their schools are set up to fail and lose federal funding because the tax cuts took money away from the NCLB act. NH is learning just how bad, destructive and damaging those tax cuts were. They would miss a couple of dollars a week in their paychecks a hell of a lot less than they'd miss the thousands of dollars a year their property taxes went up and the hundreds of thousands they're going to miss for their schools.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. Just how is the President going to lower anybody's property taxes?

[KaraokeKarlton]

26. By repealling all those tax cuts Bush gave

and fully fund the things the states had to raise property taxes to pay for. Kerry will let the middle class buy an extra gallon of milk every week but he won't be able to afford to fully fund education, deliver health coverage and keet people safe by fully funding state and local level homeland security. Dean has the right idea, along with some plans for tax reform that will help the middle class a hell of a lot more than an extra gallon of milk will help them.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. Property taxes are state and local, not federal.

And if you think property taxes in New Hampshire or anywhere else are going to go down because of the Bush tax cuts being repealed (and they WILL be repealed) you are definately gullible enough to fall for Dean's con job.

[KaraokeKarlton]

47. You obviously aren't educated about NH then

If you think, for one second, that NH won't lower property taxes the second they get the federal funding they need to pay for things then nothing you say about NH can be taken seriously. NH is vehemently anti tax. The only state tax they have is the property tax. No sales tax, no state income tax...only property tax. Thanks to Bush's tax cuts and lack of state funding, NH is in a mess. Their property taxes didn't just go up a little bit. One guy I know had his property tax bill go up over $6000 this year. He got $200 from Bush's tax cuts. He paid 30 times what he got from Bush to the state of NH, because the state had no choice. When Dean repeals Bush's tax cuts, whoever runs for office in NH will promise to lower property taxes or they won't get elected. It's that simple. If they don't lower them, they will get the boot, just like that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. I'll believe it when I see it.

Hey I wouldn't mind my property taxes going down either. But whatever happens on the federal level, I won't be holding my breath.

Anyway, it is an undeniable fact that the federal government has no control over property tax rates.

[KaraokeKarlton]

50. No, it doesn't

But unless all the tax cuts go, the states won't even have the option. And what I say about NH is true. Their state motto is "Live Free or Die" and by "Free" they mean "tax free" on a state level. It's their state "autonomy" that is being threatened by these cuts Bush gave. If NH schools fail and lose funding the state might have to choose between schools and instituting a state income tax or sales tax. If it comes to that, the state will be in a worse state of riot than Vermont was over Civil Unions. I'm dead serious.

[Fabio]

54. Sorry to butt in here...

But we should be clear here that the middle class tax cut (that was installed by democrats in Congress in Bush's larger tax bill) did NOT directly cause property taxes to raise -- the choice of the government to not fund certain state level programs (unfunded mandates) while funding other federal programs heavily (the military) is what is at fault. The government's spending has grown 30% since Bush took office. It's the largest expansion of government in 40 years. State aid, which would have easily kept property taxes down, could easily have been afforded. But it wasn't important to this administration and GOP Congress.

Republicans had a variety of ways to allocate money - they could have easily decided to spend the requisite $30 billion on state aid, plus NCLB. But they didn't. They increased spending heavily in other areas, they gave 3/5 of their lost revenue to the top 10%, they chose to hurt the states.

It was a choice.

[KaraokeKarlton]

55. That's irrelevent

You're not looking ahead here. It doesn't matter in the least that Bush chose not to fund things. The fact of the matter is that because of everything Bush has done to turn the largest surplus in history into the largest deficit in the history of the planet...the ONLY way to fix the mess is to get rid of ALL of the tax cuts...ALL of them, period. It's non-negotiable. Kerry knows this, too, but he's too afraid to say so because he thinks no one will vote for him if he tells the truth. The fact is, the voters KNOW the tax cuts were a bad idea and they are willing to give them up. If this weren't the case, then why the hell would thousands upon thousands of voters go to hear Dean talk and cheer like crazy when he tells them he wants to repeal the tax cuts?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. All or nothing. It HAS to be ALL.

Why? Why is it neccesary to reinstate the marriage penalty? Should people really pay higher taxes because they're married? Is it absolutely neccesary to take away the child tax credit? Isn't it possible that, maybe we could find a way to afford helping middle-class and lower-income families?

In John Kerry's vision, we can do these things. And this is the kind of progressive tax policy the Democratic party has always stood for. I hope Dean will rethink this position as his has so many others and embrace the Democratic ideals of progressive taxation and helping working families.

[peaceandjustice]

78. Honestly it doesn't HAVE to be all or nothing but

when Dean takes an all or nothing stance on the campaign trail, when he gives a little leeway after being elected he'll be able to limit it to the child credit, or the marriage penalty, or leaving the tax cut in place for households earning 60,000 or less.
Right now Kerry is against repealing the tax credit for wealthy households. What compromises can he offer when he is negotiating with Republicans in congress? Maybe instead of preserving the cuts for households making up to 200,000 a year He'll agree to keeping the cut in place for households up to 300,000. Maybe a cool half-million. And when the tax cuts preserved expands, how will he a)reduce the debt b) expand health care c) increase the SEC budget to a level where they can prevent Enron-esque fiascoes d) expand worker safety programs (mining accidents and fatalities have steadily rose since Bush cut MSHA's budget)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

88. You are saying that Dean doesn't mean what he says?

Is your position really that Dean doesn't mean what he says, that he plans to do something different after being elected than he is saying on the campaign trail? That his 'firm stance' now is really part of a plan to compromise with the Republicans?

The idea that Dean doesn't mean what he says is not foreign to me, it's just that I don't usually hear that used as a reason to support him.

[peaceandjustice]

126. I don't know, Is pig-headed stubbornness a virtue?

I have no doubt that Howard Dean will fight to repeal as much of the tax cut as he can. But I also believe he is a practical man and experienced enough with interacting with legislatures to know that he will likely have to "give an inch," especially if Congress is still in Republican hands. John Kerry would too. The question then becomes who would be in a better position to repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy. Kerry supports preserving the tax cuts for the wealthy up to 200,000 a year and when pressed to compromise would likely have to set the income level for preservation even higher. Dean's "absolutist" stance would leave him better equipped to minimize the preservation of tax cuts.
I don't believe he "plans" on doing anything different. I think rather that whoever the Democrats nominate, if elected, will have to compromise to create legislation that can pass. Just as, according to many Kerry supporters here, Bush had to compromise and include cuts aimed at the middle-class when Kerry-who was in the congressional minority- and other Dems fought for their inclusion. That doesn't mean Bush doesn't believe what he says about supporting voodoo economics though.
I think Dean's staked out a position where when debating a repeal with congress, he can compromise slightly and still pursue a balanced budget that includes debt reduction.

[Nicholas_J]

131. I think is is laughable

That even idiots in New England beleive that Dean means what he says.

Dean opposed all legislation that would control the bleeding of his staesw budget into the profits of large health insurance corporation and phramaceutical companies.

Dean's political career was financed primarily by health insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies and Dean either vetoed or opposed any programs or legislation that would allow Vewrmont to get deep discounts on drugs it purchased, or the administrative fees charged by the big insurance companies that got the deals to administer medicaid claims.

It amazes me how Democrats can be blinded by bullshit from a candidate and igonore or try to make excuese for OBVIOUS use of position in order to payback his patrons. Dean opposed ANY health care system that was government run and his proposals and lack of system in Vermont, very much resemble the 4 tiered plan he has for the U.S. Which makes tracking where the dollars actually ended up nearly impossible. The last Governors report (dean was always good at calling comissions when the legislature was pissed at his largess to large corporations, but never responding to the comissions suggestions).

Two Vermont Senators actually decided not to run in order to set up an public watchdog group to keep an eye on how the pharmaeutical companies were bilking the state with Deans blessings.

The Governors report, when read with a political eye is a scathing attack on Dean by people who were once his strongest supporters:

Governor's Bipartisan Commission

On Health Care Availability & Affordability

Final Report

I. Authority, Scope

A. On January 24, 2001, Governor Howard Dean issued an executive order establishing a Special Governor's Bipartisan Commission on Health Care Availability and Affordability.

II. Introduction

A. Our commission is made up of people who have spent years listening to testimony and otherwise studying the problems of health care availability and affordability. We have differences, some of them passionate differences, in our political philosophies, and it should come as no surprise that we differ on some of the directions reform should take. Although we have taken a substantial amount of new testimony during the past nine months, our real task has been to try to find common recommendations, despite our philosophical differences.2

B. Based on what we have learned, we do agree on this: Health care in Vermont is near a state of crisis -- some of us would say it is already in crisis -- and all health care sectors are on edge. We also note that many of these problems are national or even global in scope and that our abilities to solve them at the state level are limited.

C. Health care costs in Vermont, now exceeding $2 billion a year, are of a sufficient magnitude, however, and are increasing at a sufficient rate to place state government itself in jeopardy, including every program for which it appropriates money. By comparison, Vermonters budgeted $1.8 billion for all state government services in FY 2001 (not including federal funds).3

We are rapidly approaching the point at which these costs will directly conflict with our ability to do such things as to maintain roads and bridges, for example, or to provide cost-effective services to our infants and children, to promote agriculture and tourism, or to provide any other services our citizens have come to expect.

D. We do not have a health care system in Vermont.4 That means:...

http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:aC9QzqwOEmkJ:www.state.vt.us/health/commission/docs/report/mainreport.doc+%22Howard+Dean%22+%22Incentive+Plan+for+Medicaid%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Read this entire report, and you will see that it is really a thinly veiled assault on Deans giving billions away in adminsitrative costs and the purchasing of prescription drugs at very high prices in order to reward those who paid for his camopaigns.

Intersting reading.

[peaceandjustice]

132. So I oppose govt.-run health care

I was born in a govt.-run hospital, has routine surgery botched in a govt.-run hospital, had something as simple as a bee sting allergy misdiagnosed in a govt.-run hospital. Look at the military and VA health care systems and tell me that's the direction America should move in.
And what has any congressman or Senator, Republican or Democrat, done to reign in the pharmaceutical industry? When did John Kerry propose repealing the Reagan patent laws that keep generic firms from competing? How would he pay for an empowered Federal Trade Commission to investigate pharm. company price-gouging when he wants to leave the Bush tax cut for wealthy families in place. (and I think most people would agree with me that 200,000 a year is wealthy)

[KaraokeKarlton]

79. What's more important?

Education or the tax cut?
Insuring the uninsured or the tax cut?
Making sure our ports and borders are safe or the tax cut?
Not leaving our debt to the next generation or the tax cut?
Taking good care of our veterans or the tax cut?

Most of the tax cuts for the middle class start being phased out in 2005 and 2008 anyhow, from what I understand. Until something is able to be done to prevent the wealthy and big business from avoiding paying what they owe, without the middle class making this sacrifice for our country, we're basically fucked. We have responsibilities to this country for those who have to live in it after us. If we shrik those responsibilities we are NO better than the people everyone here complains about.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

96. Either/Or. Black/White.

Right now we have a President who sees the world in those kind of simplistic terms. I don't think we need another.

[Fabio]

59. Are you serious?

I totally reject what you are saying. I have an econ degree and an mba. Your answer seems to imply simplistic assumptions about the causes of our current fiscal hole.

Do you literally think the tax cut is/was solely responsible for the deficit? It wasn't. Three things have happened.

1) Federal Spending has increased in the last 3 years.
2) 3 major tax cuts were introduced.
3) Decrease in general economic activity, corporate profits and a huge loss in capital gains revenue drove down total tax revenue.

Revenue to the government due to the poor economy -- the tax base-- is the key driver here. Revenue has fallen many more rimes than spending has increased. For Christ's Sake, we had a $2.6 trillion surplus a few years back. The rationale for cutting taxes is that they generate economic activity through new spending from consumers, increasing the flow of currency and spending in our economy, which thus creates new revenue for the government through additional taxation.

Where people argue with Bush tax cuts is that they were given predominantly to the rich, who spend money slower, have much higher savings rates and spend more money (by %) on foreign goods than do middle and lower class americans. Economists, responsible ones anyway, argue that the cuts for the rich are an inefficient form of stimulus. They are right.

But giving money back to ordinary americans, raising families (marriage penalty and childcare tax credit) increases consumer confidence and spending very directly. Its that form of stimulus that gives you the best chance of revenue recovery and thus expedites the path to fiscal sanity.

[KaraokeKarlton]

80. Of course it wasn't solely responsible for the deficit

But it sure as hell is why we don't have enough money to cover the things we should be covering. It was irresponsible to give them in the first place. Also, Bush has already done the damage and someone has to fix it. We can't snap our fingers and make all those bombs un-detonate in Iraq. Anyone with more than half a brain cell KNOWS that to dig ourselves out of the hole we're in, we NEED to repeal the tax cuts to pay for the things we aren't going to have the money to pay for otherwise. Anyone who has to pay bills understands this very simple concept. If you don't have the money to buy food and you keep paying for it with the credit card instead of making a sacrifice on your own spending you not only have to eventually pay the food bill, but interest on top of it. To be fiscally responsible you simply don't live outside of your means. Our country CAN'T afford those tax cuts and our largest deficit in the history of the world is a very good indicator of that. The cuts MUST go. And then, the process to reform taxes and end corporate welfare must be undertaken. Since Dean is owned by the people and owes nothing to special interests, he is the one most likely to do the right things because he doesn't "owe" those groups anything. What a novel idea that our president could actually lead without tied hands.

[Fabio]

85. What evidence do you have that...

Howard Dean's hands are not tied by special interests? I am not suggesting they are, but I can guarantee you that you cant say they are not. Why?

1) His records from Vermont are sealed.
2) His campaign finance sources are not in the public domain (dont fall under FEC umbrella).

Meanwhile, John Kerry, yes that Special Interest maven, has never taken PAC or soft money for any of his four senate campaigns -- which makes him entirely unique among his senate collegues. Additionally, none of his money from this election cycle (like all the candidates) is generated from special interests. It's all from individuals up to $2k.

Take a look at the candidates' various progressive credentials. With the honorable exception of Kucinich, I would forward that John Kerry's are light years ahead of other candidates. He's actually been winning races for 20 years without special interest $, he has gone after companies that exploit loopholes and subsidies (see McCain-Kerry Commission), and he has gone after government corporation, as an insider, in a way Howard Dean could never claim (BCCI, Iran Contra, etc).

[KaraokeKarlton]

104. Because I live in Vermont

And anyone who lives here knows full well that there is NO way to hide anything or keep any political secrets in this state. Our entire state government operates with open doors, meaning the public can sit in on things. Dean isn't owned by anyone, and he's honest. Everything that happens in the state government is covered by our local press...everything. Everything Dean ever did in the state is a matter of public record. The only things that are sealed are personal correspondence from his constituents. Seeing as the 2000 elections were all about Civil Unions there are probably thousands of letters from gay people who have not "come out". If Dean were to open those records it could potentially open people up to being targetted for hate crimes. That wouldn't be fair to those people who have written to him to ask for his help.

Dean is a damn good man and an honest politician. He has always served the people, NOT special interests. The closest he ever came to associating with special interest groups is when he was trying to protect the Champion Lands from clear cutting. He succeeded by having the NRA behind him on that deal, because he made sure it was kept open to hunting. That's what the state wanted, and the only people who fought the Champion deal were those who wanted to log it bare and those who had gotten lifetime deeds for camps. Dean allowed the deeds to last until 25 years after the death of the current owners of the deeds. The NRA actually helped him win some of those people over by supporting him on this huge environmental protection issue. Hundreds of thousands of Vermont's land will never be developed as a result. I don't consider that to be a bad thing, and I think most here would be hard pressed to disagree with me on that. So, Dean will work with these groups, but he will NOT sell out to them. He can't be pressured by them, either.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

107. This guy lives in Vermont, too:

Dean an enemy of reform
January 20, 2002
(from the Letters to the Editor section)

People have lost faith in the electoral system because they don’t believe that the old saying: One person one vote, has held true. They see the influx of corporate money into politics and the distortion it creates. Politicians are no longer beholden to the voters and their consciences alone. They owe their positions and their loyalty to various corporations and big money interests.

There has been much talk about campaign financing reform in recent years, and in Vermont we were lucky enough to have a comprehensive law written and passed on the issue. We have a system of public financing in place that allowed candidates to run without bowing down to corporate interests. Vermonters can have campaigns about issues, not about raising money.

But we are losing this resource. The Dean administration has long been opposed to public financing, if not always in words then in actions. In the 2000 elections, Dean had promised to run a clean campaign, but as soon as the spending caps were struck down by the courts, Dean reverted to his old ways. He raised the most money in Vermont gubernatorial history, by promising the health industry, among others, his support. Now he is attacking the existence of public financing for any candidate. He has threatened to raid the public financing fund and hand this state over to corporations who have no allegiance to it.

Tell Dean that you want citizens of Vermont controlling our elections, not his corporate buddies.

ROB CURRY-SMITHSON

Wilmington
http://rutlandherald.com/Archive/Articles/Article/41007

[KaraokeKarlton]

108. You do know that the guy is a "Green", don't you?

So now Democratic voters are supposed to be against Dean because some Green doesn't like Dean? Sorry, but Mr. Curry-Smithson is STILL a Nader supporter even after 2000.

http://www.sit.edu/news/archive/nader.html

[Feanorcurufinwe]

109. You said you KNOW Dean isn't corrupt because you are from Vermont.

And I showed what an empty argument that is.

[Nicholas_J]

116. Then Why...

Did Dean ask for his records to be sealed for 20 years, which at his current age would be about for the rest of his life.

Dean took lots of money from health insurance companies, as well as from the pharmaceutical industry, and a group was started to try to get Dean to start asking for the same discounts from the pharmaceutical industry that other states get. Becasue you live in Vermont just does not cut it, especially when you are a Dean supporter.

VPIRG Criticizes Excessive Campaign Contributions Being Given to Vermont Candidates
For Immediate Release: September 29th, 2000

September 19, 2000 CONTACT—Peter Sterling, VPIRG 223-5221

Montpelier, VT -- The Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) today criticized the excessive amounts of contributions from national political parties flowing into Vermont campaigns. The event was held in the wake of Governor Howard Dean receiving a $270,000 donation from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Republican gubernatorial candidate Ruth Dwyer has also

received $80,000 in donations from the Republican National Committee (RNC) and has asked for an additional $200,000 from the RNC and the Republican Governors Association.

According to Dave Rapaport VPIRG Executive Director, "The fat cats are walking their dirty money right into the Vermont elections, giving freely to both major political parties. Once these elections are done, they will be right back knocking on the statehouse door asking for favors like stopping the effort to lower prescription drug prices."

To date Governor Dean has raised $631,163 in his reelection effort while Ruth Dwyer's campaign has stated they expect to spend up to $450,000 on her campaign. Progressive Party gubernatorial candidate Anthony Pollina has agreed to stay with public funding meaning he will spend only $300,000. The only other candidate for statewide office who has committed to staying with public funding is Lieutenant Governor Doug Racine who will only spend $100,000.

Added Rapaport, "The 2001 legislature must act to close the loophole


http://www.vpirg.org/news/press_releases/pr_20000929_ExcessiveContrib.html



An Open Letter November 2001

Dear Vermont Legislator:

The Vermont Citizens Coalition for Clean Elections is concerned that special interest money is dominating Vermont's elections, preventing the voice of ordinary Vermonters from being heard. We are asking you to support closing the political party loophole in Act 64, Vermont's Campaign Finance Reform law, to limit the amount that a political party can donate to a Vermont political candidate.

In the 2000 elections, over $1.1 million was contributed by the national political parties to gubernatorial candidates. In this election, political party donations made up 60% of Howard Dean's contributions and 62% of Ruth Dwyer's contributions. By contrast, in 1998 only 18% of Dean's and 21% of Dwyer's contributions were from political parties. Special interests such as the pharmaceutical industry ($24 million) and insurance industry ($30.8 million) were among the leading contributors to the both of the major political parties.

The federal court judge who ruled on Act 64 found that limits on party contributions are not unconstitutional by definition, but rather that the limits imposed by Act 64 were unconstitutionally low. The Vermont Legislature could easily close the political party loophole by imposing contribution limits tailored to suit the role of political parties in Vermont politics

http://www.vt-world.com/Archive/2001/November_21_2001/Features.htm

Among other things hidden in Deans record are notes from the 45 meetings Dean had with IBM in which he states they got everything they wanted...Sorry, even in a state like Vermont, and even living there, there is no way you can know what dirt went on behind the closed doors.

[KaraokeKarlton]

124. Still beating that dead horse?

Listen, the Civil Unions issue led to thousands of homosexuals writing to Dean telling their stories and asking for his support. If his private correspondence (that's ALL that is sealed, by the way) is unsealed it compromises the privacy of those people. I can't believe some people criticize him for protecting the privacy of people who wrote to him to ask him for help. It's really pathetic. Everything Dean ever did in Vermont is open to the public and a matter of public record.

[Nicholas_J]

91. The attacks of 9/11

And the end of the dot com boom account for 2/3rds of the deficit, according to GAO figures, the market dropping from over 10,000 to Almost 6,000 after the attacks. Before the Bush Tax cuts went into effect. The market itself has clinbed since the second round of tax cuts.

AND NOT ONE economist will back Deans ideas of repealing the entire set of tax cuts. Nobel Prize Laureates who met to get togetther to oppose theBush tax cuts recommended EXAACTLY what Kerry is suggesting. A temporary middle class tax cut.

[DemBones DemBones]

115. Over and over in history, we see thousands and thousands of

people listening to a speaker and cheering "like crazy." It's hardly a new phenomenon. But seldom do the cheering crowds understand everything they are told, much less the repercussions of proposals made.

Deanies can't refute the facts about Dean's record in Vermont so they talk about all the support he has. I'll remind you that George W. Bush* has supporters who will cheer him, too.

[Nicholas_J]

89. New Hampshire WILL not lower property taxes immediately

Nor will it do so until it gets rid of its OWN deficit.Only a fiscal idiot would think so. The same republicans who opposed Shaheens attempt to raise taxes a few years back, also oppose the repeal of the Bush tax cuts. As do most indepentents, as well as most middle class democrats.

Now provide YOUR PROOF, rather than your opinion about what New Hampshire residents will do. Yout opinion is the opinions of one person, whith perhaps a select group of friends, and you seem to be incapable of backing up your personal BELIEFS about What MOST PEOPLE IN NEW HAMPSHRE WANT.

You have NEVER provided a bit of information to support your personal opinions so far.

[KaraokeKarlton]

105. Stick to Florida politics Nicholas

Because you don't know diddly about New Hampshire or Vermont. NH ALWAYS runs a deficit. They don't care, either. Hell, they went for ages without funding public kindergarden because they don't want to pay state taxes. Their priorities are as follows: Virtually NO state taxes and gun rights. Their social services SUCK, and they don't care. Their schools in most areas SUCK, and they don't care. I'm not kidding. Time and time again less taxes win out over everything else. The federal taxes aren't the issue with them...it's the state taxes, and the ONLY state tax they have is property tax. They were already high before Bush's tax cuts, and now they have gone up over $100 million in the last year. It's going to be even more next time. It's a mess and people are going to get rid of any politician who doesn't promise to lower the property taxes. NH does NOT care about the state deficit.

[Nicholas_J]

130. THey always DO.

But they will not support repealing All of the Bush tax cuts. You may think you know what you arevtalking about, but the data and info coming out of New Hampshire says otherwise. In my jobs with the county libraries, I have spent a lot of time analyzing government data, and public opinion in order to get money from the public and make budget requests.

Deans tax ideas will inevitably cause a nose dive in his polling within the next month.

[Vikingking66]

113. property taxes are involved b/c

Their other taxes are tied to the Federal rates on income taxes and dividend taxes.
I.E, when Bush cut Federal taxes for the rich, he lowered the tax base of all the states. Which is why they're in debt now.
You restore the cuts, the states go out of bankruptcy, property taxes
can go back down, and social services can improve.

[peaceandjustice]

77. easy

by increasing federal revenue through repealing the Bush cuts and financing the programs that required the local and state tax increases with grants.

[EagleEye]

23. I remember cronkite on the evening news giving body counts, you?

[Nicholas_J]

60. I have lived in Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

Lived in West Pawlet, Vermont.

The online New Hampshire Newspapers ALL are reporting opposition to Deans proposal as people are learning about them. Most local newpsper polls show that there is strong opposition among democrats, republicans, and independents.

[KaraokeKarlton]

106. Post links

If they are reporting this and you found it online, then post the links. Of course, we all know you won't because it's a crock of shit, but I digress...

[Nicholas_J]

129. Why

Should I post links...all you do is post opinion and have NEVER validated one claim you have made for Dean except from Deans own campaign screed or your own personal opinion.

[Nicholas_J]

66. This is what people got from the 2003 cuts alone:

Less than 10,000 per year: less than 1 dollar

10 to 20,000 $49.00

20 -30,000 183.00

30- 40,000 310.00

40- 50,000 413.00

50 -75,000 723.00

75- 100,000 1814.00

100-200,000 3085.00

200-500,000 6733.00

500-1,000,000 20,241.00

more than 1,000,000 92,526.00

This according to the Urban Institute/Brookings Institute Tax policy center



The effects of the new law should be showing up soon. The IRS says employers should already have started withholding less tax, based on updated tax tables.

And it says it will begin mailing checks to taxpayers with children under 17 later this month—$400 for each child claimed on 2002 returns.
A married couple making 50,000 dollar a yearwith 2 children recieved 1122.00.

A single person making 50,000 with no deductions recieved 416 dollars.

According to U.S. Department of Treasury Inc/AARP Public Policy Institute.

http://www.aarp.org/bulletin/yourmoney/Articles/a2003-08-12-less_taxing.html

This from the 2003 tax cuts ALONE.

This was a 350 billion dollar cut. The 2000 cuts were for 1.2 TRILLION, and the distribution of these cuts were exactly the same as the 2003 cuts. Meaning that the 2000 cuts gave 4 times as much in returns to the average family earning 50,000 per year, plus the deductions of 400 per child.


Dean is trying to deceive many people, and even flip flop on his reasoning for repealing all of the tax cuts.

So the figreus Kerry is providing are totally accurate, do not come from Bush Administration SOurces and as usual Dean is lying through his teeth.

[MercutioATC]

84. A quote from the article you posted:

"An analysis done last month by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington research organization, notes that 63 percent of households with people 65 and older—some 16.4 million—will save $100 or less.

Only about 11 percent, or some 2.8 million households, will save $1,401 or more, according to its study."

Seems it's not so great a deal for seniors after all....

[unfrigginreal]

29. Gee, I wonder why Dean leads all of those polls then?

As I said before, Dean is telling Kerry to go take a hike!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

101. Because the public doesn't know his real positions yet.

[Vikingking66]

112. that's flat out not true

60% of all Americans favor getting rid of ALL of the Bush tax cuts in favor of health insurance.

check out PollingReport.com

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. Dean wants to cut Medicare

and he stood by that position just this week:

Among other things, Gephardt dug up Dean quotes from the early 90s, calling Medicare “one of the worst things that ever happened” and “one of the worst federal programs ever.”
On the day the charge was made, Stephanopoulos was riding around with Dean for the This Week segment.
And before Dean had any chance to prepare responses in advance, George hit him hard, throwing documents at him while the cameras were rolling.
Unlike the NAFTA bickering, Dean didn’t complain at all (despite this being true “gotcha politics”).
He took the questions in stride and answered forthrightly:

DEAN: Of course I support Medicare. That's ridiculous. I certainly have been very angry at Medicare over their bureaucratic stuff. They're really difficult bureaucratically to deal with.
(Note: This is backed up in what Gephardt quotes from.

In the 8/3/93 AP story with the ominous title “Liberal Doctor Is Conservative on Health Care Reform,” Dean followed his “worst things” comment with:

“My father was in the hospital last year and he still can't get his bills straightened out because nobody who knows anything will talk to him at Medicare. It's just a pathetic bureaucracy.”)

STEPHANOPOULOS: (Gephardt) also says that in 1995, you specifically supported the 270 billion dollars or so in tax cuts that were called for by Newt Gingrich --

DEAN: I think that's very unlikely.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's the document…And it's pretty clear that you said you would accept a seven- to ten-percent cut in the rate of growth of Medicare, which is --

DEAN: Oh, a cutting the rate of growth is much different --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, except that the cut in growth rate in 1995 came to 270 billion dollars.

DEAN: I've got to find out…but I fully subscribe to the notion which is to reduce the Medicare growth rate to ten percent or less, I'm sure I said that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's what Newt Gingrich was calling for in 1995.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/091403.htm#091603

The second part of Kerry's letter.

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

[Demobrat]

21. Kerry is deliberately misinterpreting what Dean said.

He wants to create a false impression in senior's minds that Dean wants to cut their benefits, when he was actually complaining about the bureaucracy. Dean won't let him get away with it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. Read for yourself folks.

STEPHANOPOULOS: (Gephardt) also says that in 1995, you specifically supported the 270 billion dollars or so in tax cuts that were called for by Newt Gingrich --

DEAN: I think that's very unlikely.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's the document…And it's pretty clear that you said you would accept a seven- to ten-percent cut in the rate of growth of Medicare, which is --

DEAN: Oh, a cutting the rate of growth is much different --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, except that the cut in growth rate in 1995 came to 270 billion dollars.

DEAN: I've got to find out…but I fully subscribe to the notion which is to reduce the Medicare growth rate to ten percent or less, I'm sure I said that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's what Newt Gingrich was calling for in 1995.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/091403.htm#091603

Also, note how Dean tried to deny his own words till confronted with the documentation...

[EagleEye]

27. 10 years ago wanting to look at cutting the rate of growth?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. This isn't ten years ago it is a few days ago:

STEPHANOPOULOS: (Gephardt) also says that in 1995, you specifically supported the 270 billion dollars or so in tax cuts that were called for by Newt Gingrich --

DEAN: I think that's very unlikely.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's the document…And it's pretty clear that you said you would accept a seven- to ten-percent cut in the rate of growth of Medicare, which is --

DEAN: Oh, a cutting the rate of growth is much different --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, except that the cut in growth rate in 1995 came to 270 billion dollars.

DEAN: I've got to find out…but I fully subscribe to the notion which is to reduce the Medicare growth rate to ten percent or less, I'm sure I said that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's what Newt Gingrich was calling for in 1995.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/091403.htm#091603

This isn't a ten year old interview.

[EagleEye]

37. No but he was aske dabout his postion 10 years ago. HELLO!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. And he said it is still his position. HELLO!

I hate having to post the same quote over and over but when you folks pretend it wasn't said I don't know what else to do:

STEPHANOPOULOS: (Gephardt) also says that in 1995, you specifically supported the 270 billion dollars or so in tax cuts that were called for by Newt Gingrich --

DEAN: I think that's very unlikely.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's the document…And it's pretty clear that you said you would accept a seven- to ten-percent cut in the rate of growth of Medicare, which is --

DEAN: Oh, a cutting the rate of growth is much different --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, except that the cut in growth rate in 1995 came to 270 billion dollars.

DEAN: I've got to find out…but I fully subscribe to the notion which is to reduce the Medicare growth rate to ten percent or less, I'm sure I said that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's what Newt Gingrich was calling for in 1995.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/091403.htm#091603

"I fully subscribe to" (present tense) NOT 'that was my position then, but I've changed my mind'

[Demobrat]

28. Reducing the growth rate is the same thing as cutting medicare?

OK.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. Yes. Unless the growth rate matches the rising costs

of healthcare, benefits will be cut.

[Demobrat]

41. Why don't you check out Karaoke's post below.

And try to open your mind to the idea that there might be a better way than the same old same old let's warehouse the old people, what the hell, medicare's paying.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. As I said, does Dean have some 'plan' he is keeping secret?

"Dean's secret plan to cut Medicare beauracracy"

Kinda like Nixon's "Secret Plan to end the War" from '72? Well it worked for Nixon, maybe it will work for Dean.

[EagleEye]

25. Dean wants to save this Party...

from itself.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. Abandoning Medicare is a way to save our party?

Why not just be a Republican in that case? Because if Dean becomes President it is the Republicans in Congress that he'll have to ally with to get this passed.

Can you imagine Ted Kennedy or Dennis Kucinich voting to cut Medicare like this? I can't.

[Demobrat]

35. Abandoning medicare?

You wish. Get a grip.

[candy331]

34. Sure makes

Kerry look weak to me. Let the best man/woman win and quit trying to knock someone else out of the race. Kerry, let the voters decide.

[KaraokeKarlton]

31. The rate of growth could be cut while more people being covered

if it weren't for the beaurocracy. You see, Dean has always fought that beaurocracy to make the program better. He believes that Medicare pushes institutionalized care over home care. Nursing homes are MUCH more expensive than home care, and it's also a lot less desirable. Dean thinks that Medicare should encourage home care over institutionalized care. But of course those Washington insiders like to pander to the health care industry, including nursing home "chains" who suck so much money out of Medicare it's ridiculous. If it was run the way Dean would like it to be, Medicare would try to provide the cheaper and more often preferred care by keeping people in their homes by providing the necessary support services. If this was done, not only would more people be able to get Medicare than ever before, but the rate of growth could be cut too. It's such a shame that your candidate doesn't have these kinds of innovative ideas and would rather continue to see less people get the help they need.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

38. Are you saying Dean has some plan? Why is he keeping it secret?

[KaraokeKarlton]

44. It's not a secret, it's in his Vermont record

As well as in his testimony before Congress pretty much annually for quite some time now. Dean got this state moving more towards home care. Under Medicare rules, it's much harder to get Medicare to pay for the home services that allow the elderly to stay at home than it is to put them in a $5000 a month nursing home. This is the kind of things Dean was talking about when he criticized Medicare. He tends to be critical of things that are too wasteful and don't do a good enough job in doing what they are supposed to do. He'd definitely try to fix things like that as he did here in Vermont. You see, Dean is very innovative about getting more for less. It's one of his hallmarks, you could say. Do a search for some of his testimony if you want a good idea about how supportive he is of the elderly and disabled.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

45. So, what you are saying is, there is no plan.

Just a vague promise to 'fix things'.

But the one specific thing that he has said, is that he agrees with the Gingrich plan to cut the growth rate.

[KaraokeKarlton]

48. Actually, you should read Dean's vision right here...

Allow me to propose four reforms of federal policy with respect to long-term care:

§ Reform 1 - Allow greater state flexibility. Federal policies should permit states to offer flexible benefits, for example, by permitting us to begin helping frail elderly and disabled persons before their condition is severe and when our intervention could actually do the most good. We have made a careful study of the concept of early intervention in Vermont over the past several years and have used what we have learned to design a potentially groundbreaking program, known as "Home Front". Under this program, elderly and disabled persons who do not qualify for Medicaid, but whose quality of life and health could be enhanced through minimal interventions, would be enrolled for a limited package of services. These services would be tailored to a person's particular needs, and might include environmental modifications to their home, assistance with home chores and so forth. Because most of these people would be on Medicare and have Part B, the program would also seek to engage their personal physicians in the design of the benefit package.

In order for us to offer a limited benefit package under existing federal regulations, the Home Front program would require a Section 1115a Medicaid waiver. This in turn means we would have to be able to demonstrate to HCFA that the program would be budget neutral to the federal government, i.e., that the federal government would spend no more on Home Front than it would have spent absent the waiver. That, unfortunately, is a difficult test to pass, when these people theoretically were costing nothing before - nothing, that is, if only Medicaid is considered.

For the Home Front program, and others like it to be implemented, one of two things must happen. Either the budget neutrality tests for persons with dual Medicare and Medicaid eligibility must be modified to look across both programs or states must be given the flexibility to offer these kinds of benefits without going through the difficulty of obtaining an 1115a waiver.

§ Reform 2 - Remove the bias toward institutional care. In a letter to the states issued by HCFA last year in the wake of the Olmstead decision, HCFA said, "…no one should have to live in an institution or a nursing home if they can live in the community with the right support. Our goal is to integrate people with disabilities into the social mainstream, promote equality of opportunity and maximize individual choice. (2)" I endorse that position and would offer a shorter, "New England" re-phrasing: No one should ever need a waiver from the federal government to remain in their home.

It is important to note that a leveling of the playing field between non-institutional and institutional care will not result in massive new federal spending. The good news is that home- and community-based services, the services people prefer, are actually cheaper. In Vermont, the average annual Medicaid cost for nursing home care will be $48,000, while the average cost on our home- and community-based Waiver will be less than $20,000. The evidence from federal studies confirms that home- and community-based services are cost-effective, in part because they give states greater leverage as a payer. For example, a GAO study in 1994 concluded, "Home- and community-based services have helped control growth in overall long-term care expenditures by providing an important alternative to nursing facility care, thus helping states exercise greater control over nursing facility capacity and use (3)." And this conclusion was reached without considering any potential savings garnered for Medicare.

§ Reform 3 - Emphasize self-determination and independence. A great deal of energy has been devoted of late toward crafting a patient's bill of rights. In the world of long-term care, there can be no more fundamental right extended to patients and their families than to have a voice in deciding where an individual is going spend the rest of his or her life. Granting this right again is dependent on the flexibility available to state Medicaid programs - making certain that states can intervene early and offer multiple options for care.

§ Reform 4 -Re-examine public financing. As you can tell from my earlier references to Medicare, I believe the Medicare and Medicaid programs are inextricably linked when it comes to the world of long-term care. Most long-term care recipients in Vermont and other states are covered by both programs, with Medicare serving as the primary payer and Medicaid the secondary.

Since 1996, Vermont and five of our neighbors have studied Medicare-Medicaid crossover issues through a group known as the "New England States Consortium". Working with Medicare data provided by HCFA - and not normally available to states - we have been able to develop a complete profile of our dually-eligible populations. From the work done by the Consortium, I can tell you that while dual eligibles represent only 17 percent of all Vermont Medicaid beneficiaries, they account for nearly half - 46 percent - of our Medicaid budget. Similarly, the Medicare program spends nearly twice as much on each dual eligible as it does on Medicare-only beneficiaries.

Clearly, assuring the fiscal solvency of both programs in the future will require that long-term care dual eligibles be addressed in a holistic fashion. If there are things that can be done within Medicaid through early intervention and other measures to reduce costs in Medicare, they should be allowed and encouraged. And the savings should be recognized on both sides of the ledger.


http://aging.senate.gov/events/hr71hd.htm

[Feanorcurufinwe]

51. This proposals may have merit. But to characterize them as a 'plan

to reform Medicare' is simply false. In fact, in the quote you provided, Dean calls this " four reforms of federal policy with respect to long-term care"

"For the Home Front program, and others like it to be implemented, one of two things must happen. Either the budget neutrality tests for persons with dual Medicare and Medicaid eligibility must be modified to look across both programs or states must be given the flexibility to offer these kinds of benefits without going through the difficulty of obtaining an 1115a waiver."

<snip>

"through early intervention and other measures to reduce costs in Medicare"


that's all I see in there about Medicare.

And, I have to say, let's do whatever we can to improve Medicare. If we can save some money without sacrificing benefits, great. But cutting the funding FIRST is putting the cart before the horse.

[KaraokeKarlton]

52. This backs up what I said before about how Dean does things

He always did this in Vermont. He would closely examine programs to see if they were working. If they weren't, he would work very hard to find a solution to make them work properly. He would do this same thing with all programs, as it's a big part of the way he runs things and balances budgets. He's very, very good at finding cheaper ways to do things just as well, if not better than previously done. Aside from this, I'm certain this has been included in his health care plan. As a doctor he knows where the waste is and has already said he'd be able to reduce a lot of unnecessary spending by taming the paperwork monster and making it simpler and more effective. There's a lot of very innovative and great ideas he has, but to be honest with you, I think your mind is closed to that. When you criticize Dean, you sound like the most prolific "Dean basher" on DU, and most of the "facts" that poster shares is a bunch of triped up nonsense. I suspect reading all that crap may have led you to hate Dean so much. That's really too bad, too, because those things are not accurate.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. Cutting waste is good. But the fact is that Dean wants to cut Medicare.

That is what he said. You can call me a 'basher' if you want but that's just name-calling.

Are you saying these quotes aren't accurate? What is your basis for saying that?

[KaraokeKarlton]

56. I'm saying the quotes are incomplete

and when quotes are incomplete it is very easy to make them appear to say something different than was actually said. Just because someone criticizes a program doesn't mean they criticize the service the program is supposed to provide. You aren't separating the two things. For example, I don't think many people would argue that providing care for the elderly and disabled is very important and that the government should ensure they get that care. However, I think there are probably MANY people who take issue with the way the programs for the elderly and disabled are run. That's what Dean was criticizing...the beaurocracy and how horribly the program works in a lot of cases. He explains some of that in the link I provided for you. And it's quite clear in that testimony he gave, that the health and care of the elderly and disabled are issues he cares a great deal about. If he didnt, he wouldn't have bothered to give that testimony in the first place.

Now, I hear constant criticism on here about how rotten the media is. Does that mean everyone thinks we should just do away with the media or does it mean that people are frustrated with how it's being run?

I trust I've made my point.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

62. Untrue The Stephanopoulos quotes ARE NOT incomplete or selectively edited.

There is no selective editing going on here:

Among other things, Gephardt dug up Dean quotes from the early 90s, calling Medicare “one of the worst things that ever happened” and “one of the worst federal programs ever.”
On the day the charge was made, Stephanopoulos was riding around with Dean for the This Week segment.
And before Dean had any chance to prepare responses in advance, George hit him hard, throwing documents at him while the cameras were rolling.
Unlike the NAFTA bickering, Dean didn’t complain at all (despite this being true “gotcha politics”).
He took the questions in stride and answered forthrightly:

DEAN: Of course I support Medicare. That's ridiculous. I certainly have been very angry at Medicare over their bureaucratic stuff. They're really difficult bureaucratically to deal with.
(Note: This is backed up in what Gephardt quotes from.

In the 8/3/93 AP story with the ominous title “Liberal Doctor Is Conservative on Health Care Reform,” Dean followed his “worst things” comment with:

“My father was in the hospital last year and he still can't get his bills straightened out because nobody who knows anything will talk to him at Medicare. It's just a pathetic bureaucracy.”)

STEPHANOPOULOS: (Gephardt) also says that in 1995, you specifically supported the 270 billion dollars or so in tax cuts that were called for by Newt Gingrich --

DEAN: I think that's very unlikely.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's the document…And it's pretty clear that you said you would accept a seven- to ten-percent cut in the rate of growth of Medicare, which is --

DEAN: Oh, a cutting the rate of growth is much different --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, except that the cut in growth rate in 1995 came to 270 billion dollars.

DEAN: I've got to find out…but I fully subscribe to the notion which is to reduce the Medicare growth rate to ten percent or less, I'm sure I said that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's what Newt Gingrich was calling for in 1995.
http://www.liberaloasis.com/archives/091403.htm#091603

Yes, besides saying he wants to cut the Medicare growth rate, Dean also says he was upset because his father couldn't "get his bills straightened out". Whoop-ti-doo. We all know that Dean's father doesn't need Medicare to pay his bills anyway. It's the poor seniors in this country who really do need Medicare, who would have no health care without it, who will be hurt if Dean and the Republicans are able to cut Medicare the way they want.

From Kerry's letter:

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

[KaraokeKarlton]

82. I was talking about the quotes Gephardt put up on his site

And cutting the rate of growth is not the same thing as cutting a program. To be fiscally responsible you can't spend at a higher rate than the rate of growth of the economy. If the Medicare budget goes up higher than the rate of growth it continuously threatens the solvency and survival of the program. Rather than just throw money at programs that are costing more than they should because of the greed of the health care industry, you FIX them and keep a tight hold on the financial reins. I've shown you the proposals Dean has made that shows how much cheaper home care is, and most people prefer that over being put in a nursing home. Just tweak a few of the rules of the program, cut out the needless beaurocracy, move the program in a better direction and save tons of money, cover MORE people and still be able to cut the rate of growth. What, pray tell, is wrong with doing those things? Don't you want MORE people to get covered and for the program to be more cost effective?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

92. Dean has confirmed that that is his position - this week.

As has been demonstrated, but you keep wanting to ignore. Dean told George Stephanopoulos that he still is in favor of this.

This Republican plan, that Dean supported in 1995, and says he still supports, was the big issue in that summer. Democrats fought it and we even allowed the government to shut down rather than gut Medicare. And guess what? FOR ONCE, WE WON! The public was solidly on our side on this issue.

"He applauded the efforts of Senate Budget Committee chairman Pete Domenici, R-Nev., who presented his own balanced budget plan last week... Dean also said he could defend Domenici's approach to reducing Medicare costs. He said he supported more managed care for Medicare recipients and requiring some Medicare recipients to pay a greater share of the cost of their medical services...
"'I fully subscribe to the notion that we should reduce the Medicare growth rate from 10 percent to 7 percent, or less if possible,' Dean said."
(Source: Montpelier Times Argus, 5/18/95)

The cuts Dean described - reducing the rate of growth to 7 percent - was exactly what Newt Gingrich's budget proposed. This would cut at between $256 and $282 billion from Medicare: "Under the House and Senate plans, the annual rate of growth of Medicare spending would be cut from 10 percent to 7 percent... The Republicans say these changes would trim as much as $ 282 billion from Medicare.
(Source: Dallas Morning News, 5/15/95)

[MercutioATC]

75. "Restraining spending increases" is NOT "cutting Medicare".

Dean's plan is multifaceted. Restraining spending increases is one of the methods that he feels are necessessary for the time being until some greater level of stability is reached. Bringing spending increases under control is a common (and effective) way to provide stability immediately. When the system is stable, further increases can be considered.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

93. If costs go up, and spending doesn't, benefits will be cut.

Let's see the costs savings FIRST, and then cut funding.

[MercutioATC]

110. That's what his healthcare plan is about.

Making healthcare more available to everybody. Having health care insurance promotes regular doctor visits and early treatment of medical issues, both of which lower the cost of medical care. Eliminating the exclusion for pre-existing conditions will further lower costs to people. Having a prescription benefit will reduce expenditures even more.

That's one of the things I like about Dean's plans...they all tie into one another to form a big interlocking overall concept. His trade policy has issues that deal with national security. His healthcare plan benefits the economy. I think it shows the level of deliberation that has gone into his policy positions.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

111. Reining in the spiraling costs of health care is a key component

of Kerry's healthcare plan. But I think it is a mistake to start out with a goal of limiting Medicare. The cost control has to come first. Then, if Medicare suddenly had plenty of money as a result -- then it might make sense to think about cutting the Medicare growth rate as Dean is proposing. Or perhaps a better idea would be to put some of those savings into covering more Americans overall:

(1) CREATING A NEW APPROACH TO CONTROL SPIRALING HEALTH CARE COSTS AND PASSING THE SAVINGS ON TO WORKERS. In 2001, only 4/10 of one percent of private insurance claims was for individuals with health expenses in excess of $50,000. However, these claims accounted for nearly 20 percent of medical expenses for private insurers. John Kerry believes that health care is becoming too expensive. He has a proposal for a new 'premium rebate' pool that will make heath care more affordable for all employers and employees by helping out with certain high cost health cases. Under this proposal the pool would reimburse employee health plans for 75 percent of the catastrophic costs they incur above $50,000 as long as they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers premiums. Helping out with catastrophic costs would strengthen the employer-based market by making health care more affordable for purchasers. It will also make health care more affordable for those who buy into the Congressional Health Plan.

(5) CUTTING ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN HALF WITH A NEW TECHNOLOGY BONUS The annual cost of health care today is $1.4 trillion. At least 25 percent, or almost $350 billion, is spent on non-medical costs principally the costs of the paper work burden, including those costs associated with the preparation, submission, calculation and payment of bills. This is orders of magnitude more than for any other industry. Where as settling a single transaction in health care can cost as much as $12 to $25, banks have cut their costs to less than a penny per transaction by using modern information technology. The Veterans Administration has found that through improved technology, doctors can pull entire medical records (that previously cost $9) instantaneously and without cost and other purchasers have similar results. John Kerry believes that by applying modern information technology to the health care system at large, we can cut administrative costs in half, saving $175 billion a year.

(1) ALLOW EVERY AMERICAN ACCESS TO THE SAME HEALTH PLAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS GET TODAY. Today, nine million Federal employees and their dependents get health care through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), which offers a wide choice of affordable health plans with group protections and good benefits. John Kerry believes that all Americans should have access to the same affordable coverage policies that Members of Congress get today. John Kerry s plan would allow all Americans to join FEHBP by adding a new pool for small and large businesses, as well as individuals and families who need affordable health insurance. A new premium rebate program will provide subsidies to help stabilize insurance rates and keep coverage affordable by removing the burden of high cost cases from the insurance pool. These premium rebates have the potential of saving Americans up to 10 percent (or $1000 for a family) on their current health care costs. John Kerry will also sign an Executive Order to ensure participants will be guaranteed the right to family health benefits for their domestic partners.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/kerry_health_plan.pdf

[MercutioATC]

114. Agreed. Dean's plan does it too.

They actually have quite a few similarities. Part of the rising cost in healthcare is due to the millions of dollars that hospitals (actually, emergency departments, mostly) have to absorb in unreimbursed medical expenses. Universal health care will solve this problem

[Nicholas_J]

119. That was the one thing Dean did not do

HE made absolutely NO effort to control the costs of medical care institutionally. He allowed large corportations to keep squeezing the states, but cut the amount of money paid out to doctors and hospitals.

Thats what Peter Shumlin was referring to when he said:

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.com/Legislature/Story/46513.html

Dean didnt do what is done in other states and allow negotiation for discounts on quantity drugs used in state clinics or provided to V-Script patients.

Again, the critisms of the Vermont Health Care system by people Dean appointed to a comittee investigating health care in Vermont were:


D. We do not have a health care system in Vermont.4 That means:

1. No one is in control.

2. No one is responsible for ensuring that high-quality medical care is adequate for the needs of the public.

3. No one ensures that medical charges are appropriate or that they are paid in full.5

4. There is a "disconnect" between the consumer receiving health care and the entity paying the bill. Consumers are shielded from the cost of the service.

5. There is no global budgeting or targeted growth planning for health care in Vermont.

6. There is little in the way of public accountability for the performance of health care institutions, or for their long-term planning.

7. Although administrative costs, including those associated with government paperwork burdens, have reached an unacceptable level, no one has been able to do anything about it.

http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:aC9QzqwOEmkJ:www.state.vt.us/health/commission/docs/report/mainreport.doc+%22Howard+Dean%22+%22Incentive+Plan+for+Medicaid%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8



That last little statement indicates that a large amount of the costs for health care was in administrative costs.

What that ACTUALLY means, is that the state was paying more to health insurance companies contracted to PROCESS, than anyone else was getting.

The state does not process the claims. It sends bids to large companies like Blue Cross and has them process the claims.

While doctors were being squeezed. The insurance companies who got the bids were getting rich. Which is pretty much why Dean did not approve of single payer, or large government programs, and why he does not want to CHANGE the existing system.

Even though the Lewin Group indicated that a single payer plan would reduce the level of unisured to zero, and cost 5 percent less than the state was paying in Deans last year as governor (a cost savings of 100 million dollars)

He got A LOT of his campaign contributions in Vermont from both pharmaceutical companies and from health insurance companies,cand if you check opensecrets.com, you will see that for his lifetime record of campaign cntributions, they are his largest.

Peter Shumlin and Cherly Rivers started an organization in order to lobby for control of prescription drug prices becasue of Deans lack oa leadership in this area. Or perhaps it was just personal benefit he sis not wish to lose.


Regional prescription group moving toward joint action
October 3, 2001

By ROSS SNEYD The Associated Press

MONTPELIER — Eight Northeastern states are forming a coalition that their legislative leaders believe would have the economic power to force pharmaceutical manufacturers to lower their prices.

Legislators from the six New England states, New York and Pennsylvania plan to adopt a regional plan later this month that a consultant has told them could drive down prices as much as 40 percent.

“We have billions of dollars in potential savings outlined,” Vermont Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, said Tuesday.

Shumlin is currently chairman of the Northeast Legislative Association on Prescription Drug Prices, which is pushing the coalition.

The association announced Tuesday that it was hiring Sen. Cheryl Rivers, D-Windsor, as executive director, the group’s first permanent staff member. Rivers, who currently is chairwoman of the Vermont Senate Finance Committee, plans to resign her Senate seat to take the job.

Rivers said her first goal would be working with legislators to draft and pass legislation in each of the eight states that would enable them to form the coalition.

http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/State/Story/34903.html

Three years ago, Peter Shumlin created the National Association on Prescription Drug Prices (NLA), a paper organization with no authority. He hired Cheryl Rivers as its executive director. Her job was to set up a clearinghouse for ideas for states to reduce drug prices and increase access for constituents. As one of three Vermont House members on that commission I attended NLA’s quarterly meeting in Concord, New Hampshire in June.
Funding of NLA has always been contentious in Vermont. Maine, Washington, DC and Vermont participate in the organization but Vermont pays 50% of the costs. New York and Connecticut anticipate paying as they did last year but failed to send a check. Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Hawaii, who are also members, contribute nothing.

Some view NLA as a Democratic political action committee taking advantage of an emotional issue to capture headlines. Many of NLA’s directors who are Democrats use drug prices as an issue for political visibility by waging a multi-front war on the pharmaceutical industry, claiming they are motivated only by profit.

NLA directors have used the cheap drug topic to run for higher office as evident in the 2002 election in New England. The executive director’s major function is sending newsclippings from around the country to fuel this war by bashing pharmaceutical companies claiming they exploit consumers.

http://home.adelphia.net/~frankmazur/NLA_update_07_03.htm

Want to see Deans answer to this type of action:


Dean had kind words for the bill in general, saying that the Senate Finance Committee and Health and Welfare Committee had taken a good first step toward bringing down the cost of medication in Vermont. But he added that he was concerned about the bill's cost - close to $2 million in state funds to administer.

Dean said he would not support the price controls unless six or seven other states joined in the regulatory effort as well. That way, he said, the legal costs of defending the bill against a likely constitutional challenge would at least be spread around the region.

"There are a lot of things about this bill that are still question marks," Dean said. "I look forward to working with the House to shape a workable proposal."

http://www.rutlandherald.com/legislature/leg2000/regdrug.html

Which was a bullshit answer, as all of the other states ALREADY had deep discout agreements for their medicaid programs.

If it were a Republican who was acting like Dean was in the case of getting drug discounts, everyone would be crying that they were owned by big business.


They had to fight Dean in the legislature on this, and decided to take it public.

And they are still fighting, because to date, ther is not such deep discouting given to the state for its purchases of medications.

[Cha]

39. Thanks I really appreciate your home grown take on Dean...

Thanks for your "voice"!

[Nicholas_J]

64. Dean did the samevthing in Vermont

And fewer and fewer doctors would accept medicaid, and one by one, all of the health care providers accepting Medicare began to leave the state.

And more of Deans history of statements:

During his tenure as Vermont governor, Dean advocated making the government-run, fee-for-service Medicare system a wholly managed health care program, saying in December 1995 that savings from the switch could be used to help elderly recipients pay for prescription drugs.

The Republican-controlled House, following the lead of Gingrich, passed a Medicare overhaul bill in 1995 that would have resulted in savings of $270 billion from the program over seven years. Democrats warned that the move was political suicide and would cost Republicans with voters, particularly seniors.

Dean also advocated increasing the Social Security retirement age to 70. He now says he no longer thinks an increase would be necessary and that a better solution would be to let more salary above $87,000 fall under the payroll tax.

``In 1995, Howard Dean said Medicare is 'one of the worst things that ever happened,' `` Gephardt said. ``...When viewed in isolation, these words seem unbelievable. You'll see that Howard Dean's views about Medicare extend beyond merely disliking it. He's actually advocating cutting it and turning it into a wholly managed care program.''

The viability of Medicare, which serves the elderly, is critical in Iowa, which is ranked fourth in the nation in the portion of its population age 65 and older, according to the 2000 Census. Only Florida, Pennsylvania and West Virginia have a higher percentage of elderly.

http://wbz1030.com/nhnews/NH--Gephardt-Dean-en/resources_news_html

[Nicholas_J]

65. Dean had the opportunity to reduce the nealrly 2 billion dollar

Health care system in Vermont and did not fight fo it, Not onkly would it have reduced costs by five percent, but covered EVERY SINGLE VERMONTER. Dena was offered a method to create universal health care and did not fight for it...

But then again, Dean is spineless, never willing to take politically dangerous stances willingly:

E. This commission does not recommend the Single Payer option, even though we have been told by The Lewin Group that it could cover all Vermonters, including more than 51,000 currently uninsured, for 5 percent less than what we are collectively paying now.

6 Some of our opposition is on philosophical grounds, but in practical terms, we reject that option for a variety of reasons, including:

http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:aC9QzqwOEmkJ:www.state.vt.us/health/commission/docs/report/mainreport.doc+%22Howard+Dean%22+%22Incentive+Plan+for+Medicaid%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Nicholas_J]

61. Dean stated on Meet the Press

that he wants to freeze medicare spending. It was hidden along side his statements about raising the age of retirement and the social security got the bigger play.

Dean: $85,000, maybe you raise it to $100,000 or whatever the numbers are. We’ve got to look at the numbers to figure out what you do. You get the Social Security problem off the table first by fixing it and then not allowing the Congress to keep taking money out of the trust fund. The president’s financing his tax cuts by taking money out of the Social Security trust fund. That’s ridiculous—first. Secondly, what do you do about the budget? You restrain spending. You do not have to actually make cuts in things like Medicare or in things like Medicaid or even in Defense. What you have to do is restrain the increases in spending.
Russert: When the Republicans tried to limit the growth, the Democrats said that was an actual cut.
Dean: Well, they’re going to say what they’re going to say. All I...
Russert: You would be willing to limit the growth...
Dean: Absolutely.
Russert: ...in Defense, in Medicare and Social Security?

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp

[VermontDem2004]

72. Thanks Nicholas, I 100% agree with Dean

Dean: Well, they’re going to say what they’re going to say. All I...
Russert: You would be willing to limit the growth...
Dean: Absolutely.
Russert: ...in Defense, in Medicare and Social Security?
Dean: You have to do that. If you don’t go where the money is—Social Security, we’re going to fix differently. We’re not talking about Social Security. We’re talking about Medicare. We’re talking about Defense and we’re talking about all the other things the federal government does. But I want to put the tax cut back into that budget. They need it to balance the budget.
Russert: That’s raising taxes, though. Let’s be honest.
Dean: Here’s what I say to people. You have a choice. Do you want to have the president’s tax cut or would you like a health-care program that nobody can ever take away? Do you want to have the president’s tax cut or would you like to fully fund special education, which is an obligation to the states, which is raising your property taxes? Do you want the president’s tax cut or would you like to go back towards a balanced budget so we can actually create jobs and have a healthy economy again? Because a balanced budget, I believe, is the key to turning the economy around, as Bill Clinton showed. So, if you ask that to most Americans, they’re going to say, “I would much rather pay the taxes that I was paying when Bill Clinton was president if I could have health care and my property taxes would go down and we could have jobs again.” Because they never got the president’s tax cut. The vast majority of people in this country either got no tax cut or got a small few hundred dollars. I had a guy in New Hampshire one time who stood up and said, “Governor, you may make some sense here.” This is New Hampshire. “I got a $600 check from the president, but my 401(k) went down $60,000. I think I was better off before the president’s tax cut.” Most people got hurt by the president’s tax cut and they’re paying more property taxes because of what the president’s tax cut has done to their state and local government.

[MercutioATC]

73. "restrict growth" equals "freeze spending" now? He did NOT say that.

Your own quote proves it.

First, you criticize Dean for wanting to increase the money going to federal coffers to provide crucial programs. Then you criticize him for trying to increase SS and Medicare security. You don't want him to have more money, and yet you complain when he says that restraining spending increases will probably be necessary.

What's YOUR plan to put SS and Medicare on more solid ground?

[Nicholas_J]

117. There is NO need to do anything about Social Security

It is totally solvent, and would have remanied solvent if it was completetly locked. There was not problem with either funding for Social Security OR Medicare. There was a SIX TRILLION dollar surplus in the Social Security trust fund, more than enough money coming into it so that even when the baby boomers retired, there was enough reserve to pay for it. All that is necessary's for politicians to not turn to it everytme they want to fund a program, give a tax cut, or balance a budget.

Which is how Dean balanced budgets in the past, by getting money from Vermont's rainy day fund. Social Security is currently STILL solvent until the year 2041, even without the surpluses. The baby Boomers begin returing withing the next 5 years, and the boom continues until 2040. After that, the boom is over, and Social Security will still be able to be solvent for the next generation until 2058.

Dean is simply trying to rob the locked box to balance the budget, just like Bush did in order to give a tax cut.

Dean is creating a problem that does not exist in order to use the lowered funds elsewhere.

And the fact is, that the taxes taken out of payroll have been taaken out to provide Social Security for those who paid into it. Sorry, it is an insurance policy, and Dean is attempting to weasel out of the bargain. Most people working pay their money in, and expect what they were promised by keeping up their end of the deal.

Dean is dead wrong, and as a rich guy, doe not mind robbing the average working person of what is most likely the ONLY retirement plan they have.

[stickdog]

74. Voters send Kerry a "Dear John" letter.

Dear John:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Er, sorry, were you saying something?

BTW, I'm leaving you for Howard Dean.

No, it's not you. It's me and my damn narcolepsy.

Sorry,

American Voters

[Feanorcurufinwe]

99. How articulate.

Are you a Rhodes scholar or something? What a well-thought out, reasoned, and articulate defense of Dean's plan to raise taxes on the middle class.

[polpilot]

81. Kerry's campaign resembling 'crack central'. I had to go to the Kerry web

site to verify he ACTUALLY wrote this letter. If Kerry is going for the world's record in worse run presidential campaigns he has a helluva start.

It's obvious he hasn't fired enough of his staff and this letter is enuff evidence for wholesale firing. A child can understand the transparency and desperation in this letter.

Dean '04...The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

95. Is that the best you can do? Name calling and insults?

So much for defending Dean's plan to cut Medicare and raise taxes on the middle class.

Do you remember the 1984 Presidential election? Mondale also promised to raise taxes. And he ended up losing in a landslide to a candidate who said at one of the debates: "I'm all confused now" (http://it.stlawu.edu/~quack/seminar/mondale_campaign.htm)

[LuminousX]

94. Thanks Kerry

WTF is this? If this is 'good advice' then why would Kerry give it to Dean?

Kerry is still chasing Dean. "Dean, Dean, Dean, Dean," He needs to stop chasing and start leading.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

97. Raising taxes on the middle class is not the kind of leadership we need.

I don't want a repeat of the 1984 election.

[LuminousX]

98. Then don't vote for it

But I think people are smart enough to know the Bush tax cuts bled this country. I'm willing to give up my cut to get this country rolling again. That is the sacrifice I'm willing to make. What are you willing to do for your country?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

100. "repeal the tax cuts for the wealthiest...keep the middle class tax cuts"

“I think it’s time we had a President who will provide the only real economic security: good jobs. A President who will provide middle class payroll tax relief to get money in the pockets of workers who will spend it, not more tax giveaways for those at the top to stimulate the economy in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. A President who will index the minimum wage to inflation and raise it from a 30 year low, not increase the tax burden on the middle class and those struggling to join it.”
-- John Kerry, March 27, 2003
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/restoring_jobs.html

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.”
http://www.johnkerry.com/news/releases/pr_2003_0909b.html

The pressure on middle-class families is mounting. Today’s two-income family earns 75 percent more than its single-income counterpart a generation ago, but actually has less to spend due to soaring housing costs, day care, college tuition, and health care. The average middle-class family can no longer buy a home unless both parents work. This year more children will live through their parents’ bankruptcy than their parents’ divorce. John Kerry’s priority is to relieve the burden on middle-class and low-income families by (1) protecting middle-class tax cuts, (2) ensuring that Americans have health care coverage, and (3) providing high-quality early care programs for children.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/09_08_03taxcuts.html

[Nicholas_J]

102. Lets check some sources about what economosts think:

Many economists caution about simply removing the tax cuts altogether, but most agree that a gradual repeal could be done without significant negative effects to the economy. But for most Democrats, the "how" is far less important than the debate over "whether" and "how much".

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1059480094213


Many economists said the question of whether repealing some or all of the tax cuts will help the economy depends largely on where the economy stands by then.

"By 2005, I expect the economy will be stronger, more fully utilized" but still not up to full strength, said Citigroup senior economist Steven Wieting, who warned that any projection about the budget and its economic impact can't possibly account for unpredictable changes in discretionary and military spending.

"Under those circumstances, my guess is that a full repeal of the tax cuts would be negative," he said.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/22/news/economy/tax_cuts/?cnn=yes

Actually, if ever there were a time to run a deficit, this year would qualify. Deficits can stabilize the economy during recessions, when tax revenues dip and demands for programs such as Medicaid and welfare rise. And certainly the economy is still struggling to get out of recession. Balancing the budget this year would only make matters worse.

Deficits can also help finance wars. U.S. troops have invaded two countries in two years. And we are spending to bolster security at home. The United States has significantly increased its national debt as a portion of GDP five times. With one exception -- the Reagan years -- those have been times of war. And some argue that the Cold War contributed to 1980s spending.

Economists note that deficits shift burdens to future generations -- and in wartime that's a good thing. World War II secured freedom for many countries in 1945, but later generations enjoyed the fruits of that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3660-2003Sep12.html

But so far, Dean has offered little in the way of an economic alternative, and a major part of his plan -- repealing this year's tax cuts -- isn't exactly getting a warm reception from economists.

"I don't know of many serious economists who think that a tax increase, immediately implemented, is a good idea," said David Kelly, an economist at Putnam Investments.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/08/07/news/economy/dean/


Are tax cuts for wealthy taxpayers the best way to stimulate the economy? No.

When the economy needs the stimulation provided by quick infusions of consumer spending, most economists have recommended policies that provide income to lower-income families and individuals.

Recent research has confirmed that the poorest fifth of taxpayers save only 5 percent of their incomes, spending the rest, while the richest fifth save more than 40 percent.

Most economists now believe that the time for economic stimulus is past. When proposals to jump-start the economy were being considered, Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote in the Washington Post, “give money to people who have lost their jobs in this recession and it would be quickly spent.” Further, the consensus of prominent economists, including Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin, was that any tax cuts for the purpose of economic stimulus should be temporary, to avoid an overheated economy and higher long-term interest rates. Proposals to make the tax cuts permanent cannot be justified as an economic stimulus.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:OIxXivYie5IJ:www.childrensdefense.org/pdf/fs_CDFtaxqa.pdf+%22Economists%22+%22Repealing%22+%22Tax+Cuts%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Bottom line is that most economists do not recommend repealing ALL of the tax cuts.

[DianeK]

120. oh nick,

you always get so many replys...why is it that you hate dean so? could it possibly be because he is smarter than you..did you attend college with him..get over it babe, support who it is you think is better, k?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

122. I'd say it's been a good issue oriented debate in this thread

mostly

[Closer]

123. Kerry is getting weaker and weaker

He looked absolutely pathetic at the debate today.

[blm]

125. Gee...Frank Luntz agrees with you.

So does Susan Molinari. I wonder why that is?

[DrFunkenstein]

127. Especially That Part About Dean

Getting 21% of his "balanced budget" from a federal bail-out. Kerry looked terrible there.

[polpilot]

128. Only a Kerry fan could be impressed by that trivia. Kerry & Gephardt,

misrepresenting Dean's commitment to medicare and health care for this country, were a pathetic sight. Two washed out, sold out, Bush-like politicos on their last chance to be the "Homecoming Queen' and now to be usurped by someone not invited to the party!!!

Their tactics this early may get a few votes from hard of hearing medicare recipients that are taken in by these two charlatans but the majority of voters are outrage that these two could indicate, on any level, that Dean will yank the medicare safety net. Half truths and half lies have gotten these two where they are today. I believe that place is called 'Nowhere".

Dean '04...The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party.