Kucinich vs. Dean on economy

[diamondsoul]

Up front, this si something that has driven me bananas for a while now. I'm starting this thread HOPING to have a real dialogue between the Dean and Kucinich camps, not a bashing fest.

Obviously, as a Kucinich supporter, I agree with his view on the bloated Pentagon budget. Ok, that's me. Can a Dean supporter (or as many as want to be part of this) explain to me how Dean will get the budget balanced while sending more troops to Iraq(for who knows how long), altering healthcare structures, and improving employment opportunities here at home without cutting the DoD budget??

I'm serious, I really want to understand how he thinks he can do all this. I also want to know how he proposes to do this if Congress mysteriously passes Kucinich's single-payer healthcare proposal! Yes, I know it's a long-shot right now, but what IF?!

Can we please have a real debate about an issue instead of "he's unelectable"?

[lcordero]

1. Dean's idea I think is this

I think that he is going to end obscene R&D projects like these:
http://www.darpa.mil/ato/programs/SHM/proginfo.html

Void out contracts that have anything to do with the previous administration's cronyism.

Drastically reduce black ops all over the world.

Channel some of these funds into VA hospitals. Put enough VA hospitals on the map so that they can not only treat veterans but the general public too. If Kucinich or Dean become President, they are going to have to be sneaky in the way that they give back to their voters.

DoD funding may not be cut but it sure can be diverted into more worthy causes.

[tsipple]

3. Lcordero, Very Close...

There will definitely be some changes in allocations within DoD under a Dean Administration.

For example, Dean recently proposed cutting back -- but not eliminating -- the missile defense program. The interceptors deploying to Alaska quite simply don't work and are a waste of money. Dean wants to curtail the program and concentrate on boost phase defense and work to get that ready.

Overall, Dean is best described as an eagle, meaning a centrist on national security and defense. He's not a dove, but nor is he a hawk.

[tsipple]

2. Thoughtful Reply Attempt...

First of all, "electable" means ability to be elected. Ability to be elected is demonstrated by... being elected. Being elected means that more voters cast ballots for you than for the other guy. Well, usually. :-)

Anyone can say he/she is electable, and there's no objective proof required (or indeed available). So it's not an argument that has any weight with me. In particular, it assumes that Democratic voters are stupid. (Democratic voters are not stupid. They weigh "electability" -- whatever that means -- when they cast their ballots in primaries.)

So let's get rid of that. Kucinich is electable. Dean is electable. My pet rock is electable. Anybody who wins the nomination is electable.

OK, moving on...

1. Dean is counting on repairing relations with U.S. allies, to give them (and the U.N.) greater control in Iraq, and, consequently, to share costs more broadly.

No guarantees there, since Bush has bolloxed it up so badly.

Dean does not favor abandoning Iraq, which you might describe as the "you broke it, you bought it" philosophy. He believes there's a humanitarian responsibility at this point, and, after the cock-up, the U.S. owes its due diligence to help the Iraqi people.

2. Dean does propose a greater federal responsibility for healthcare, but the amount of funds allocated is more modest (generally) than the proposals from other candidates. (On edit: Not by much, though. Dean's healthcare proposal, he argues, is more likely to pass in Congress -- remember, a Democratic Congress couldn't pass healthcare -- and is very focused in certain areas that are in desperate need, such as mental health care, childhood insurance, and in-home services for the elderly.)

3. Dean does not favor trimming the defense budget at this point. For starters, he'd never get Congress to go along. But he also believes that there are defense responsibilities (in fighting terrorism, for example) that do call for current levels of funding. Also, much of that budget goes toward soldier and sailor salaries and benefits, and he wants to make sure those monies are protected, including full funding of special combat pay. We also have force strength problems with all the commitments made by the current administration, including Iraq, and it will take time to de-escalate.

4. Dean favors repealing the entire Bush Tax Plan, with restoration of grant funding to states, to lower the regressive taxes states levy, like sales tax, on middle income Americans.

5. Dean also advocates closing several loopholes, including the tax benefits that American companies get by relocating their headquarters to Bermuda and other offshore locations.

6. If all that's not enough, Dean will reassess and make spending cuts and progressive tax increases to achieve a balanced budget. A balanced budget helps restore financial market faith in the Treasury, lower interest rates, and boost business investment and economic growth. It also protects the Treasury's ability to support Baby Boomers as they retire.

Hope that helps. Excellent questions.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

4. Does your pet rock have a name?

I'm considering it as a write-in. :-)

Nice outline of Dean's positions, thanks.

[diamondsoul]

9. Thank you so much! I'll reply point by point-

"1. Dean is counting on repairing relations with U.S. allies, to give them (and the U.N.) greater control in Iraq, and, consequently, to share costs more broadly.

No guarantees there, since Bush has bolloxed it up so badly."

Ahhh, but I believe Kucinich could do it much faster than any of the others. Kucinich already has a good relationship with UN member Nations and a good number of other foreign leaders. That's going to be the key to balancing the budget any time in the relatively near future, getting as close to completely out of Iraq as possible. I just don't see Dr. Dean negotiating that very quickly.

Also, there is indeed a humanitarian obligation at work. The difference in their positions is just that Kucinich thinks providing financial assistance without our physical presence is better for the countries involved and the region over all.

"2. Dean does propose a greater federal responsibility for healthcare, but the amount of funds allocated is more modest (generally) than the proposals from other candidates. (On edit: Not by much, though. Dean's healthcare proposal, he argues, is more likely to pass in Congress -- remember, a Democratic Congress couldn't pass healthcare -- and is very focused in certain areas that are in desperate need, such as mental health care, childhood insurance, and in-home services for the elderly.)"

The healthcare thing, no offense but it drives me nutty when people point out the Clinton plan. *LOL* The biggest reason Congress members gave for voting down the Clinton bill was that they couldn't make any sense of it, it wasn't because it was "Universal". The thing was just so convoluted and complicated they couldn't figure out how the hell it was supposed to work! Kucinich's healthcare plan is simple, financially sound and easy to follow and make sense of. It's got a very good chance of passing at least in a Dem controlled congress. Dean's may pass a Republican Congress, I couldn't say for sure, but with current resistance levels to all things Democractic, I wouldn't count on it.(I've watched a number of House votes lately that were clearly decided by partison loyalty and nothing else. *sigh*)


"3. Dean does not favor trimming the defense budget at this point. For starters, he'd never get Congress to go along. But he also believes that there are defense responsibilities (in fighting terrorism, for example) that do call for current levels of funding. Also, much of that budget goes toward soldier and sailor salaries and benefits, and he wants to make sure those monies are protected, including full funding of special combat pay. We also have force strength problems with all the commitments made by the current administration, including Iraq, and it will take time to de-escalate."

Actually the soldiers benefits have been cut. Kucinich is aware of what can safely be cut from the defense budget as a member of the House Ways and Means comittee. He wants to trim the pork there because he knows where the pork IS, and then he wants troops provided for and veteran's benefits restored. None of that will happen as long as we remain in Iraq, though.

And oof! I think I have to stop here for tonight and come back in the morning. My brain seems to be going on hiatus and I can't stop it. *LOL*

[eridani]

11. On the Kucinich health care plan

It is cheaper than any other option on the table (Braun and Sharpton have advocated universal health care but not made any concrete proposals).

Kucinich plan = exactly what we are spending right now - x, where x is some number indicating how much is saved by extending preventive care.

Every other plan = exactly what we are spending right now + extra public money poured into insurance company coffers - x.

[diamondsoul]

12. Bingo! That plus being simple to understand

ought to be plenty of motivation to pass it.

You can bet I'll be calling DC when that bill makes it to the floor! And I'm not just calling my own Reps, either, I'll call every last one of them if I have to!

[diamondsoul]

13. Here's why I started this thread, just to clarify

At the last debate Kucinich just flat NAILED our economic free-flowing wound, that being Iraq. He came right out and said this economy can NOT be revived as long as we're in Iraq and as long as NAFTA and the WTO are allowing outpouring of jobs from this country. Those two things are absolutely dead-on accurate.

This is why I question Dean's ability to do what he promises. He hasn't brought out plans that I can see working to create the revenue he'll need to do these things. His refusal to work strenuously towards a total pull-out from Iraq and to cut the DoD budget are disturbing flaws in his economic plans from my perspective.

I've noted most of the responses here suggest Dean wants to basically shift funds around within the DoD budget. This is well and fine except it doesn't free up allocated funds for more urgent needs to be met. The other thing I've been contemplating is this- no matter WHO we elect next, taxes WILL be increasing. There is just no way around that and still keep this country solvent with the defecit we have now and it growing by leaps and bounds on a DAILY basis. The more I read of Kucinich's plans, the LESS likely it appears there would be a need for a long term tax INCREASE. Why? Because his plans include job stimulation, infrastructure repair that rather than costing the Fed will create new revenue, and stopping the horrifying rate of our deficit growth as it stands now.

Kucinich's social reform policies will cause there to be more taxpayers paying into the system while addressing problems that would normally be paid for from the Federal coffers with the least amount of Federal monies being put into it.

Do people even realize that instituting a living wage would almost completely wipe out the need for welfare programs?! That a universal healthcare plan would wipe out the need for Medicaid and Medicare split programs as well as wiping out the need for state based insurance? Do people not comprehend that by spending the money in the right place you free up what would have been spent in overlapping programs for better use and wind up saving in the long run?

Sorry for the ranting tone here. I didn't mean to get off on such a wild tangent, but this is genuinely frustrating to me. I read Kucinich's plans and think "Jeez, this could really make our economy solvent again, and FAST!" and nobody else seems to see it.

[LWolf]

5. Thank you so much.

Big hugs and grateful thanks to lcordero and tsipple for courteous, substantive answers to Diamondsoul's question. I clicked on the thread because the topic interests me. With a cringe, not sure what sort of responses I would find. I am not switching from DK to Dean, but I want to know the substance of all candidates. If I end up casting a vote for Dean in the general election, I want to know what I'm voting for! And for all the undecideds out there, actual discussion about where the candidates are on the issues is vital to making an informed choice.

:grouphug:

[Sean Reynolds]

6. I posted this article a few days ago on Dean and the economy.

Some snips from the article:

Dean Would Limit Spending to Fix Budget

SNIP

WASHINGTON - Howard Dean (news - web sites) said he would like to balance the budget in his first term even if it means limiting spending on domestic programs dear to Democrats.

But if he beats nine other Democrats to capture the nomination and then ousts President Bush (news - web sites), Dean said he might have to keep the budget in the red beyond four years to fund his plan for mass transit, renewable energy, road construction, broadband telecommunications and school building.

SNIP

Dean said he would not cut military spending in his quest to balance the budget. He also would increase spending for health insurance, special education and grants for urban revitalization.

SNIP

On foreign policy, Dean said one of his first goals as president would be to restore relations with France, Germany and other nations angered by the U.S.-led war in Iraq (news - web sites).

"I think it can be done reasonably quickly. There are some honest differences of opinion we're going to have with other countries," he said. "The trick is not to make it personal.'

Dean said Bush fell into that trap, a "dreadful mistake."

Full article here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=2&u=/ap/20030927/ap_on_el_pr/dean_interview
----------

I do believe Dean is wrong with not wanting to cut military spending. But I also like his plan for urban revitalization. As someone that LOVES America's older cities it just breaks me up to see some of its core cities continue to die because of lack of urban revitalization. I also believe that if you rebuild our cities, more jobs can be pushed back into them and the economy can be fixed.

[Sean Reynolds]

7. Just a kick!

:kick:

[genius]

8. Dennis knows where we can cut the Pentagon budget

Because of the committees he's been on, he's familiar with duplication of expenses and with which programs don't work. He gets the details that the public doesn't always get to see and would probably be shocked if they did.

[Mikhale]

10. Idea 3.14159...

I've made up my mind to support Kucinich, so I'm not able to represent the best partisan approach 'for' Dean (although he was first on my original list). However, one idea may be to see how many times I can try to go around a round peg for a square hole....
First, the assumption in your question is the primacy of "fiscal" policy: the tax-and-spend of the traditional stereotype of the liberal Democrat. Some tax cuts are repealed or allowed to phase-out (God forbid anyone should 'Mondale' their way into a tax 'increase'); some programs are cut (no doubt for the greater 'welfare' of us all); some organizational reshuffling (in order to more effectively direct 'unfunded' federal mandates, perhaps) and "Voila!": a new economy engineered through the democratic (small "d") process.
In this context, Dean's position seems to be one of fiscal conservatism: 'Balancing The Budget' sounds like more than the mantra d'jour. Dean is (IMO) seriously inclined to make the budget deficit go away ASAP. Most people consider this a 'good thing', particularly with an eye towards the long-term ramifications of a national debt growing relatively faster than real growth in the economy. To his credit, Gov. Dean seems to be acknowledging that he may not eliminate the deficit in his first term. Commendably, his pragmatism may be showing again.
Second, this approach has ramifications in the capital markets, which are generally addressed under the heading of "monetary" policy. Government borrowing impacts money markets where, to a certain extent, purchases of government securities compete with private investments in stocks and bonds used (theoretically) to generate funds which finance, via capitalism, job growth incidental to profitabilty (a 'good thing'). Of course, the major player most frequently cited in this realm is the Federal Reserve System, the US central bank, which is headed by the (Republican) Chairman of the "Fed", Alan Greenspan.
The tools the "Fed" --and other private (yes, the US central bank is privately owned) institutions-- can be arcane, but suffice it to say that if nominal interest rates get any lower, you may have to pay the bank to take your money (after the fees for cashing the cheque are extracted). (Just kidding, sorta.) Thus, there is some concern that the tools of monetary policy are becoming less useful in the manipulation of the macro-economy. In addition, the federal government has limited direct control of this avenue of approach. However, one might reasonably assume that Gov. Dean's perceived willingness to concentrate on "prudent" approaches to managing the federal debt will assuage the concerns of wealthy investors, particularly those from abroad who pay a tax called "the exchange rate". This segues into the final aspect of this lengthy discourse.
Third, "trade" policy seems to be stated in Gov. Dean's generalized --if not universal-- preference for the global institutions of "free trade" as witnessed by the alphabet soup of like GATTs, WTOs, NAFTAs and the like. Capital is allowed to flow across borders in order to utilize the comparative advantages of various international markets, thus more efficiently producing the goods and services available for consumption by those who can afford them. Once again, it seems as if Gov. Dean's approach is one of pragmatic reform of a practice held to be a 'good thing'. I'm unaware of Gov. Dean's position of the fall of the US Dollar abroad (which would stimulate the economy by expanding US farm exports, manufacturing jobs and other 'good things'), but that may be a 'good thing', too, since I can hear people's eyes starting to glaze over.
Frankly, I've hurt my head trying to remember a long-ago macroeconomics class, but I hope I've helped. I look forward to someone grading this macroeconomic 'oral exam' in reply to your posting. As for me, I think markets are more efficient when there's peace rather than war (butter in the "guns or butter" debate), not "if" but "when" and "sooner" rather than "later". Many of the decisions we face may be more than a question of macroeconomics, but it helps to start on the same page, and go on to understand investors may own banks, but "We, The People" own prosperity whether global cartels like it or not.

[diamondsoul]

14. ACK! You're posting to a student of Taoism here-

simplify, simplify and simplify some more! *LOL*

Kidding, you seem to have a far better grasp of macro-economics than I do. One of my major frustrations with Dr. Dean to date has been the lack of concrete plans to deal with issues he says he wants to resolve. There is a lot of "We need to address this, this and this to make things better." and that's pretty much it. No HOW included. Kucinich put the how in there and I love him for that.

Having said that, there are things that will have to be done to aid the economy that I strongly believe Kucinich is best qualified to handle, such as getting us the hell out of Iraq. The people he'd have to deal with at the UN already know him and his comittment to Peace. They know he's not going to turn into a raving wannabe cowboy on them, and they KNOW he isn't going to go off half-cocked and attack another country just for kicks, therefore they're going to be far more inclined to help him clean up the mess left behind by the sociopathic cowboy wannabe. They won't be bailing out George or the US, they'll be bailing out their friend and fellow Peace advocate, Dennis Kucinich. He's imminently qualified to repair the tatters of our Nation's integrity. This situation alone being resolved will go a long way towards saving our economy. It has to be the first step, imho. Dean won't get there fast enough to suit me.

[Mikhale]

15. Thanks, Diamondsoul

At least you read it.

[goodhue]

16. business as usual

Your summary aptly illustrates how Dean program will be business as usual following the unsubstantiated assumption that increased productivity and freer capital flows are a good thing in themselves. Very few public figures articulate a more sophsticated understanding of liberalized economic policy and its detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the silent majority who don't benefit directly from increases in profit and capital flows. Thakfully there is at least one candidate for president who is not on the same page as the business as usual crowd. Kucinich's economic populism is his ace card and will hopefully eventually get some attention. Thanks for contributing to this most excellent topic.

[goodhue]

17. Foreign Aid, Debt, Structural Adjustment, Swords into Plowshares

http://www.kucinich.us/index.htm

Foreign Aid: It is unacceptable that the current administration is proposing to cut core funding for overseas humanitarian aid while millions worldwide face the threat of hunger. A Kucinich administration will fully fund efforts to eradicate hunger by dramatically increasing our allocation to the UN World Food Program, whose work saves countless lives in over 80 countries through school feeding projects, nutrition programs for HIV/AIDS sufferers, refugee food relief and many other vital services.

Drop the Debt: Poor countries facing widespread hunger are being ravaged by debt payments to global institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Every year, $2.5 billion is transferred from countries in Sub-Saharan Africa to foreign bankers and creditors, while 40% of their people experience some form of malnutrition. A Kucinich administration will push for the cancellation of bilateral debts of countries facing hunger, as well as debts to the IMF and World Bank.

End Structural Adjustment: The economic policies dictated to poor countries by the IMF and the World Bank -- so-called "structural adjustment programs" -- have undermined Third World economies and exacerbated hunger while serving corporate interests. To take one example: Last year's food crisis in Malawi, where as many as several thousand died of hunger, followed IMF-mandated cutbacks in agricultural aid to small farmers and food subsidies for families. A Kucinich administration will demand an end to these policies that sacrifice what remains of the social safety net in poor countries on the alter of "free market" and "privatization" ideology.

Swords into Plowshares: President Eisenhower observed, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." This year, our nation will spend $400 billion on the Pentagon, but barely more than $1 billion on food aid for the world's hungry. A Kucinich administration will set an example for the world by cutting 15% from its military budget to help meet pressing social needs, including hunger, both abroad and at home.

In addition, a Kucinich administration will establish a Department of Peace and a different U.S. role in the world -- to mediate international conflicts and negotiate arms control agreements so that other nations can redirect resources to the fight against hunger, not an arms race.