Social Programs under Dean

[genius]

http://www.isreview.org/issues/32/dean.shtml
...
Dean inherited a massive deficit in the state budget from Snelling. Refusing to raise taxes on wealthier Vermonters (and rendering the tax system more regressive than previously), Dean declared in his first State of the State address that it would be his mission to balance the state budget with some "tough" cuts. Even though Vermont has no law requiring a balanced budget, Dean promised, "The pain for Vermonters will be real."7

Dean slashed millions of dollars from all sorts of social programs, from prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients and heating assistance for poorer Vermonters to housing assistance funds. In defending his cuts to social programs, Dean said, "I don’t think I have to shy away from that just because I’m supposed to be a liberal Democrat."8

Throughout the 1990s, Dean’s cuts in state aid to education ($6 million), retirement funds for teachers and state employees ($7 million), health care ($4 million), welfare programs earmarked for the aged, blind and disabled ($2 million), Medicaid benefits ($1.2 million) and more, amounted to roughly $30 million. Dean claimed that the cuts were necessary because the state had no money and was burdened by a $60 million deficit.9

But during the same period, Dean found $7 million for a low-interest loan program for businesses, $30 million for a new prison in Springfield, VT, and he cut the income tax by 8 percent (equivalent to $30 million)–a move many in the legislature balked at because they didn’t feel comfortable "cutting taxes in a way that benefits the wealthiest taxpayers."10 By 2002, state investments in prisons increased by nearly 150 percent while investments in state colleges increased by only 7 percent.11
...


And this is what his backers are willing to let him do to us.

[Padraig18]

1. Ummm

"Internationa Socialist Review: Journal of Revolutionary Marxism"

Ummmmm....OK. :eyes:

[blm]

2. Are they facts or lies? The footnotes show them to be facts.

If they are lies, counter them.

[Padraig18]

3. I'm not gonna bother with stuff from a red trash journal.

Sorry, I've already bathed.

[blm]

4. footnotes are from mainstream papers and legislative records

.

[Padraig18]

5. BFD!

Who gives a rip? It's from a Communist website. F*ck a bunch of that! You can make a career out of responding to stuff from a Red website, if you want, but I have better things to do.

[blm]

6. How dare website gather all those facts from legislative records and

from the mainstream press? What happens, the facts magically become irrelevant? Turn into lies? Never happened?

[Padraig18]

7. See above. n/t

[Meshuga]

20. Your past mistakes are pardoned...

...or changed to a "never happened" state once some communist newspaper decides to publish all the facts about your past mistakes. Then you can claim it's all bull since those red commies are such bullsh*t artists.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Padraig18]

69. Why should...

... an article from a highly questionable source which has been posted umpteen times and debunked umpteen times be rehashed yet again? This is about the tenth time the same BS has been posted as a 'new' thread in this DU forum alone. How quickly would you dismiss an article from a neo-Nazi website, no matter how well-written?

The old saying "consider the source" applies here.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. See posts #24 and 25.

Feel free to refute dsc's research at your leisure. I'll bookmark this thread in the hopes that you'll back up what you've obviously invested a lot of time in believing. Thanks for your attention to this matter.

-RiF-

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrSoundAndVision]

23. Hi 5

to the fly.

[a_lil_wall_fly]

26. Oh yeah....

"Play that funky music" and get the strobe and psychodelic lights going!!

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

48. Has it occured to you that another person might have alerted your post?

It does happen you know.

[a_lil_wall_fly]

49. Oh I know

[MrSoundAndVision]

13. oh Padraig...

have I told you I'm a socialist?

[Padraig18]

35. No.

Have I told you that someone has posted this same bullshit article here, in full or in part, half a dozen time this week? It has been posted and defended to death.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

52. Idle curiousity

but would you care to answer posts 24 and 25?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

61. There are 2 or 3 candidates that say they'll cancel NAFTA.

None of them will be the nominee.

While Dean certainly isn't the most progressive candidate running, he's more progressive than many give him credit for. I'm not going to try and sell you on him because you're not interested and that's your prerogative. Who are you going to vote for when a Democrat who doesn't support your strong feelings on these issues is nominated? While I support 3rd party candidates, 2004 will not be a time to be fucking around.

[MrSoundAndVision]

64. Care to name the 2 or 3?

And so you ask if I'll vote for another candidate if Kucinich doesn't get the nomination? Well I'm not sure what I'll do. I'll not vote for an establishment Democrat that IS certain, as they are part of the problem NOT the solution. And if Dean get's the nomination, I'll probably spend a few weeks or months wondering why Americans passed up the chance for a real, genuine heart-felt, truly American revolutionary or the good of everyone, destroy the corporate-stranglehold-on-our-government change in this country, or I'll already know the answer to that (the media is part of the "establishment" too) and I'll either vote for Dean because he will pretend to be a Democrat, or I'll vote socialist and let them tell me "I told you so" for trusting the Democratic party to be representative. Enough?

[demigoddess]

68. excuse me, but what social program has the socialist party enacted or

passed? I mean actually enacted rather than just advocated. If we are to go progressive or socialist the first thing we have to do is vote out the neo cons and send them packing then the democrats can balance the budget and get our social programs on an even keel again. With all this back and forth nothing will progress just stand in place.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

70. Kucinich, Sharpton and

I'm not sure about Braun.

You're free to do whatever you want.

[dsc]

66. I didn't discuss the social programs

I discussed two discrete items. One was the 8% tax cut that was mentioned and the other was the alledged 7% increase in college funding. Both were baldly wrong as I pointed out in those posts. I didn't look up the social funding due to the articles not being on line.

[polpilot]

8. Leaders lead and make decisions for the good of the people....

whether immediately understood or not.

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

[eileen_d]

10. LOL - I wonder how long it will take

to "understand" Dean if he gets elected President.

"He's a complicated man, and no one understaaaaands him but his grassroots..." (DOCTOR Dean!)

[MrSoundAndVision]

15. I missed the point of your thread below

sorry about that. Still I painted a good picture though.

[polpilot]

19. It would depend on how long it took one to understand the pro-war voters.

Dean '04...

[mitchum]

16. If you were being sarcastic, that would be amusing...

but since you're not, it's rather disturbing

[Nicholas_J]

9. They cant

Dean has one of the worse records on social spending of any democratic presidential candidate in the party's entire history. anmd Dean did nothing for the GOOD OF THE PEOPLE, but largely for the good of big business. even taking bribes from pharmaceutical companies to veto legislation that they were fighting to kill, and had passed, but which would require them to give the same discounts to the states V-Script programs that they give to the private sector:

Reports also described allegations that Governor Dean vetoed a pharmacy bill after collecting $ 6,000 in campaign contributions from drug companies...

. The influence of out-of-state donations: "Outside money is one of Howard Dean's specialties. Of the $ 312,290 the governor raised for his 1996 election, 65 percent came from out-of-state contributors: labor unions, Washington lawyer-lobbyists, the health care industry, to name a few of the special interests." n13 For the 1994 election "Dean, for example, received more money from major pharmaceutical manufacturers during the reporting period ($ 11,000) thin he did from people and companies located in Burlington ($ 10,460)." n14 One editorial said, "it's no mystery why out-of-state contributors pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into Vermont campaigns. ... They're trying to buy influence. But the cost is public trust." n15

http://www.brookingsinstitution.org/dybdocroot/gs/cf/headlines/cases/LandellvSorrell.DOC

This is only one of the DOZES of examples of Dean taking campign contributions and either fighting, killing or vetoing legislation that big business opposed but was favorable and beneficial to the middle and lower class citizens of Vermont.

As usual Dean always gave glib, one or two line reasons for the vetoes. but NEVER provided any kind of detailed reasoning for opposition. In fact most of the time, he gave reasons for alternative plans which he knew could not be applied as they violated federal laws.

Dean made sure that the companies that gave him a great deal of money alway got their way when it dame to legislation or Dean greasing the wheels for these companies in order to get around regulations that other companies had to follow, as a number of big businesses that Dean lobbied for in Vermont praise Dean in a recent Business Week article:

Business leaders were especially impressed with the way Dean went to bat for them if they got snarled in the state's stringent environmental regulations. When Canada's Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. wanted to build a new manufacturing plant on 700 acres of Vermont farmland in the mid-'90s, for instance, Dean greased the wheels. Husky obtained the necessary permits in near-record time. "He was very hands-on," says an appreciative Dirk Schlimm, the Husky executive in charge of the project.

And when environmentalists tried to limit expansion of snowmaking at ski resorts, "Dean had to show his true colors, and he did -- by insisting on a solution that allowed expanding snowmaking," says Stenger. IBM (IBM ) by far the state's largest private employer, says it got kid-gloves treatment. "We would meet privately with him three to four times a year to discuss our issues," says John O'Kane, manager for government relations at IBM's Essex Junction plant, "and his secretary of commerce would call me once a week just to see how things were going."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/b3845084.htm

The rest of the article points out Deans getting rather mixed reviews on all of the other areas, such as health care and social programs, including noting that Deans MASSIVELY underestimated the cost of health care in Vermont, and his policies drove out many private insurers reduced competition and massively drove up costs.

Big businesses praise of Deans "GREASING THE WHEELS" for compannies who caused enviironmental problems is validated by the views of environmentalists in Vermont who verify Deans polcy of letting big business get away with murder in Vermont:


"Dean's attempt to run for president as an environmentalist is nothing but a fraud," Smith told Seven Days. "He's destroyed the Agency of Natural Resources, he's refused to meet with environmentalists while constantly meeting with the development community, and he's made the permitting process one big, dysfunctional joke."

Those are not the words you'd expect to hear from an environmentalist if you relied on the mainstream press for your news. The Burlington Free Press, for example, has spent the last week putting one coat of varnish after another on Dean's tenure, including a rather smarmy salute to his eco-record. The word from those quarters is that Dean is a friend of the environment and has done nothing but anger the business community by slowing development and stymieing growth.

His record, however, shows just the opposite. Remember, when Dean took office there were 36 percent more small farmers in Vermont; there were no Wal-Marts, no Taft Corners big boxes, and no 100,000-hen mega-farms. Sprawl was not the issue du jour.

Interestingly, Dean told the Free Press last week that he wished the rest of the country was "more like Vermont." But it seems he's allowed Vermont to become more like the rest of the country.

Stephanie Kaplan, a leading environmental lawyer and the former executive officer of the Environmental Board, has seen the regulatory process become so slanted against environmentalists and concerned citizens that she thinks it's hardly worth putting up a fight anymore.


http://www.vtce.org/deanenvironmentomya.html

"EP under Governor Dean meant Expedite Permits, not Environmental Protection," proclaims Annette Smith, the director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment.

Smith is no stranger to Dean's environmental record, having tangled with the Dean administration on everything from the OMYA Corporation's mining to pesticide usage on Vermont's mega-farms. When Smith learned that Dean was holding a press conference at the Burlington Community Boathouse last week to celebrate his eco-legacy, she fired off emails to Vermont environmentalist calling for a protest of the event and wondering if they were "going to let Governor Dean ride out on his white horse of environmental leadership?"

It was Smith who stumbled onto Dean's official gubernatorial web site a couple of years ago and found a bucolic photo of her home town of Danby being featured with this caption: "Time stands still hereyou might even forget when it's time to go home." Ironically, the location depicted in the photo was the same spot Dean was pushing to host a massive gas pipeline, a plan that would have required timber clear-cuts and other dramatic topographical changes. The Dean team removed the photo within a couple of weeks, but not before Smith made hay with his apparent hypocrisy.

http://www.counterpunch.org/colby02222003.html


There are literally dozens of indications that Dean's governance of Vermont was rife with corruption, and this was part and parcel of Deans request to have his record as governor sealed for 24 YEARS initially. Which would essentually amount to the rest of his life.

Right now, there is a case before the Federal Courts in Manhattan in which one of Dean's Judicial appointees is under accusation of accepting bribes from the prosecutors offices to throw a case and disaregard the bill of rights. There are a number of allegations flying around that Dean was aware of this events.

Another case in which one of Deans appointees, William Sorrell is under investigation for covering up a murder of an environmentalist, in which Dean was asked:

When asked if Dean would ever appoint an independent investigator to look into the law enforcement’s misconduct regarding Sorrell and the Woodward shooting, Sue Allen, Dean’s ex-spokesperson had this to say for Dean: “The governor has been reluctant to do that in the past, and has a great deal of faith in the attorney general. He read the report and was comfortable with the findings.”

It is official corruption at its zenith: a governor who won’t sell out his friend of over 20 years, and an attorney general whose interpretation of justice includes a murder cover up, and bribery.

http://www.pressaction.com/pablog/archives/001035.html#001035

It appears that Dean perhaps is even more corrupt than Dubya, but is being allowed to cover up the corruption that occured while he was governor.

Democrats may be about to unleash far greater danger on civil liberties becaseu they like the sound of his slick campaign.

A man who's veto can be bought for a pittance, and who covers up for a brutal police department and even more corrupt and inept justice department is someone who everyne interested in liberty should be actively trying to keep out of office, or to make sure at lease that EVERY aspect of his record as governor be completely transparant.

Every aspect of Deans record reeks of corruption.

The fact that he can so cheaply buy support by simply sayiong what people want to hear convincingly makes this man far more dangerous that Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney and the rest.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

29. Dean is "far more dangerous that Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney..."?

LOL. So much for objectivity.

[DemBones DemBones]

34. Perhaps you need to

read that quote in your sig again:

"It is never unpatriotic or un-American to question ANY fucking thing in a democracy." - Steve Earle

Many of us question Dean's record. A person's record is indicative of his future actions. When a politician makes statements that conflict with his record -- watch out!

If given more power, would he become more dangerous than Bush*, Cheney, or Ashcroft? Maybe. He's got arrogance working against keeping him honest. And power corrupts and is a danger even to the modest and humble.

Dean's record, abilities, and motivations should be questioned, as should those of any other candidate.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

53. Questioning is good,

and this poster has a right to his opinion that Dean is worse than Bush etc. Just as he is welcome to this, from the same post: "Every aspect of Deans record reeks of corruption."

'Nuff said.

[molly]

71. If Howard the Duck-er Dean would unseal

his records........maybe, just maybe, we would feel a tad more warm and cozy?

[George_Bonanza]

11. Ralph Nader's gift to the Dems? What an insipid moron.

I'm somebody who sees "liberal" and immediately, it's a compliment. I have always felt like that, even before I understood politics. So I get really riled when some media knuckleheads think Dean's some kind of red-diaper leftist. Ha! As if. He's just what the DLC would like: centrist. Except that the DLC don't like his manners much. If you want a leftist president, your best bet is Kucinich or Kerry, not Dean. I see Dean becoming an excellent president, but in the centrist Clinton mold. He ain't gonna bring you no revolution. He certainly brought nothing of the sort in Vermont. He was an admitted centrist there. Why on earth would he change his formula? Because it helped fool a lot of people in his campaign?

[KaraokeKarlton]

12. What a rancid load of BS...

How on earth people can write this complete and utter crap on this site knowing full well that there are Vermonters reading here is beyond me.

My state has GREAT social programs, many of which that I have been on. Vermont takes damn good care of those in need of help and has as long as I've lived here. Every politician who has EVER had to deal with a budget has had to make some cuts. Stop exaggerating. Dean is NOT the devil. Dean was a GREAT governor. Dean will be a GREAT president.

[mzmolly]

46. There it is!!

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

18. Wow. The Prison building lobby obviously had Dean's ear

I guarantee you that 30 million bucks for such a project is often deferred in a budget crunch. Looks like Dean had some "help" finding that money.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

22. Wasn't building the prison necessary to avoid lawsuits?

Of course, the other option was to spend a bazillion dollard paying to have them housed elsewhere, but I was under the impression that a new facility was needed because the old prison was in such a state of disrepair that Vermont was facing lawsuits.

[snoochie]

45. Possibly true

But his record with the public defenders office raises all kinds of 'prison industrial complex' red flags.

If this story stood on it's own, it wouldn't bother me. Coupled with his record on the public defense ... it bothers me greatly.

[KaraokeKarlton]

62. That's nonsense too

The guy who makes all those accusations is a fruit loop who spends virtually all of his time filing frivolous lawsuits. He was harassing a female judge and the state had to ban him from the court house because he was stalking the poor woman. Dean isn't perfect, but the vast majority of the crap you're hearing about him is just complete and utter bullshit. He's a damn good man, was a great governor and will be a great president.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

63. I'm an architect. I know how these decisions get made.

New construction can always be deferred. One might also ask what caused the "sudden" changes in the prison population to require this.
Also, sending prisoners to Virgina sounds like a bad idea to me. But apparently the prison lobby "overbuilt" there. Sounds like bad planning all around.

[KaraokeKarlton]

67. You think you know more about Vermont issues than a Vermonter?

Yeah, right.

There has been overcrowding in Vermont's prisons for a long time. In fact, the Burlington facility had it's gymnasium filled with cots lined up. Sure, they could have pumped money into fixing a facility that didn't have enough outdoor space for recreation or they could build a new facility with lots more space available and not have to put prisoners on cots in a gymnasium or send them to other states.

So, there was no "sudden" changes in population...it's been an ongoing problem that took awhile to work out because the state had to find a town willing to let the new prison be built there.

[KaraokeKarlton]

95. The prison had to be built

We've had overcrowding problems for years. One prison had to be closed because it was in such a bad state of repair. There was not enough land to expand it, so they didn't want to waste money fixing it since they already had to address the overcrowding. Most towns didn't want the prison built near them, so it took a long time to find a place to build it. A lot of the cost was for improvements to the host town. The new prison was built in Springfield, Vermont. The town had several big plants close over the years, and the town needed a boost and more jobs. They agreed to host the prison in exchange for a new, state of the art high school with college offices and classes held in it, a new community center, a new state building and various other improvements to town infrastructure. So, a very large chunk of the "prison" money went to education, recreation, social services and town infrastructure as well as new jobs for a town that desperately needed them. Vermont prisoners that were sent to Virginia could come back to Vermont because there is actually beds for them here now. Their families and children can see them, their ties to the community won't be severed and it's been a win-win situation for EVERYONE.

Before you make claims about my state, please take the time to inform yourself of the facts in the future.

[dsc]

24. This was posted in GD and I found a mistake in it right away

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=716203&mesg_id=716446&page=

Here is the source for the 8% income tax cut

11 Interview with Anthony Pollina by Democracy In Action at the Progressive Party offices in Montpelier, Vermont, July 9, 2002. Anthony Pollina ran for governor against Dean on the Progressive Party ticket in 2000. Available at www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean0702/pollinaint.html

Yep, your eyes aren't decieving you they relied on his opponent in 2000 (his last election) for that.

Is it true. Well, to paraphrase Hertz, not even close.

Unlike this source I used neutral figures and here is the truth.

Now to state income taxes. Dean inherited a tax structure that was 28% of the federal taxes of any citizen of Vermont. Using Clinton's tax numbers that would be a three tiered system of 4.2%, 7.56%, and 9.9% of federal taxable income. He changed that to a five tier system of 3.6%, 7.2%, 8.5%, 9.0%, and 9.5% of federal taxable income. My link provides charts to show when each rate kicks in. That is actually a progressive tax cut. Poor people percent taxation was lowered by a greater amount than that of rich people. The rich got 0.4% while the poor got 0.6%. That is the reverse of what Bush did. The poor got 5% while the rich got 6%. I was wrong on one thing in previous threads. State taxes are still deductable. Also if Bush had not been elected Dean would have probably left taxes at 24% of the federal tax (where his 99 tax cut left them) that would be 3.6%, 6.48%, 9.36%. That would be a flat tax cut. This is not the Bush supply side economics that Dean haters pretend it is.

www.state.vt.us/tax/majorvttaxes.htm
www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/tax/vol1-03.htm

You need both links to have the full story. Now the claim is that Dean cut income taxes 8%. Since they don't really define that very well it can mean several things. It could mean the rate fell 8% but if we try that we see that is wrong. Dean started with 28% and ended with 24%. Subtraction yields that as being 4% not 8%. It might mean that ones total tax bill was reduced by 8%. In the top bracket (and that is these people's problem) rates declined from 9.9% to 9.36%. 8% of 9.9% is .792% Dean cut taxes by .64%. So they are wrong there as well. So maybe they dishonestly included the effect of Bush's cuts (which Dean later negated in his state). Let's see. 24% of 35% is 8.4%. That would be a cut of 1.5% so they didn't do that. Maybe Dean's opponent did what opponents often do, made up the figure out of thin air.

It took me a very short time and a not all that careful reading to find this howling error. Some might call it a deception. Ask yourself. If I could find this howler in a few minutes just how good are those endnotes? Ann Coulter had end notes too after all.





Full disclosure I was wrong on what their source was. It was instead the Rutland Herald. I couldn't get their articles since ones from back then aren't online. But clearly, wherever they got the figures they are wrong. It took me a quick reading to figure that out.

[dsc]

25. Here is another mistake or distortion

They say the following.

But during the same period, Dean found $7 million for a low-interest loan program for businesses, $30 million for a new prison in Springfield, VT, and he cut the income tax by 8 percent (equivalent to $30 million)–a move many in the legislature balked at because they didn’t feel comfortable "cutting taxes in a way that benefits the wealthiest taxpayers."10 By 2002, state investments in prisons increased by nearly 150 percent while investments in state colleges increased by only 7 percent.11

Footnote 11 is the following interview with Anthony Palina.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean0702/pollinaint.html

Corrections $31,218 $73,916 137 %
State Colleges $14,470 $21,361 47 %

I will admit the accurately report what Mr. Polina said but in the very same interview was the chart I just copied which showed Mr. Polina was out and out lying. Even assuming that they do get to 150% when you go back to 91, the man still was off by a factor of close to 7 on the increase in college funding.

Simply put Ann Coulter used end notes too. She was just as dishonest as these people are.

[genius]

27. Clearly what this shows is Dean's priorities

Unfortunately, they're very similar to Bush's. All eight of the other candidates are more concerned with social programs than with tax cuts for the rich.

[dsc]

28. too bad they lied or at least were very mistaken

about the amount the taxes were cut. But of course, you didn't bother to answer any of the critical posts to your post. I am hardly surprised.

[JohnKleeb]

30. dsc I dont know if this or true or not

but can I give you :thumbsup: for refuting it with a link and such not just its a "dirty commie rag" because that ignores the question raised. I am just applauding you for responding in a good way that you responded with links and such to refute.

[dsc]

31. thanks

I can't really do much on the rest as their sources are too old to find on the net. Maybe the Vermont denizens can look the rest of the stuff up. Most of their sources are Vermont papers but quoted before they are online.

[JohnKleeb]

32. Its ok and no problem, I appreciate you using links

and such. Well heh I live in a state begins with V but its Virginia not Vermont. I am not sure either. You gotta refute not ignore the source just because its communist or socialist, I actually consider myself some what socialist.

[dsc]

33. In cases where I can look at some of something

but not the rest, I tend to use what I can look at as a guide. They didn't do terribly well on the very limited part which I was able to hunt down. That doesn't speak well about the rest.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

37. An interesting thing that I found while researching the footnotes.

While in many cases, like you, I found the articles were too old to find, there were still other pieces written on Dean by the authors mentioned in the footnotes. I wasn't surprised to find that many of them consistently or completely wrote only negative pieces about Dean. This leads me to believe that there is an agenda in place to be selective in what was being footnoted. Not unlike a few of the posters above.

The stunning silence in response to your posts regarding taxation and social spending proves that some here are more interested in their political agenda than determining the actual facts. It is also interesting to note that your research into these facts has been presented on several occasions to these same posters yet they refuse to delete the obvious and proven lies in their arguments. In the past your posts were also left wanting for a response. This speaks volumes as to their credibility and purpose. By not altering their arguments to fit the facts, they are doing a disservice to any valid criticisms that they may have.

If I am wrong, said posters are welcome to refute your research in the space below this post. Suffice it to say, I'm not holding my breath for said refutations to be forthcoming.

[dsc]

39. neither am I

Here in this thread is repeated the unadulterated nonsense that we don't answer these charges. It is hard not to get sick of it.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

42. 64 days to IA. 72 to NH.

I think the vast majority of DU'ers understand what's going on and are not swayed by frivolous spam-argumentation. Keep the faith, brother. People recognize that you've been fair and intellectually honest regarding your methods. You let the chips fall where they may. As I also try to do. People can also recognize when someone is being intellectually dishonest and compute the import with which they should imbue on various posters. Trust DU'ers for the most part; they wouldn't be here unless they had a large modicum of savvy.

You done good, man.

[CTLawGuy]

36. yeah, thats why...

he wants to repeal Bush's tax cuts, because he loves tax cuts and hates social programs :eyes:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. Hmmm. Challenged on the merits of the claim, this thread is

dropping like a rock.

Here's another chance to refute dsc's assertions. (I'm sure it was an unavoidable oversight. That's why I'm kicking it back to the top. :D)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

44. Bi-hourly kick.

It must be slipping through the radar.

[Padraig18]

47. Yep.

It was pure flame bait, to begin with, not to mention that this is the umpteenth incarnation of this very same drivel here in P&C, not to mention GD.

I can't be arsed to answer flame bait that's been addressed repeatedly. :hi:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

54. I understand.

But with a few more kicks...and a bookmark, which I've done, it is easily referenced the next time it comes up. And it will come up.

The funny thing is is that dsc made an even stronger argument in another thread, which I failed to bookmark, so this isn't even the best defense.

Iow, this is a long-winded :kick:

[dsc]

55. Thanks

but I am more likely to see the top of Mt. Everest than the answers to these posts.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

56. But you do have the all the necessary links to come forward

with that stronger case if need be, right? :D I know you spent a lot of time on the tax BS and were absolutely fair and didn't sugarcoat the areas where Dean fell short, even though he was nowhere near the evil republican that some are attempting to paint him as. Your work on that was appreciated and beyond the call of duty.

Iow, a thankful :kick: for dsc (and all the others who are trying to be fair but won't put up with totally fabricated bullshit). One more kick and I'll put this baby to bed.


That is unless somebody wants to respond.


Anybody?
Anybody?
Anybody?
Anybody?


There's a damn echo in here!

[dsc]

60. Here are those threads on taxes

Not one response in it by a Dean critic. Not a single, solitary, one. To be fair the first one did get some responses but this one got none.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=17310

And here is the link to the first one. It should be noted that upon inspection a grand total of one, count it one, Dean critic addressed the tax issues. Most of the posts were on the IWR. So they were pretty much two for two.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=5119

[AP]

72. Do any of the Dems NOT want to lift the SS cap?

To me, that seems like that's a low threshold for Democrats. They all meet it, right?

As for the Clinton tax rates, you must know the argument about that:

- it was tax code that was the result of compromise with Republicans. Why is that Dean's ideal? It wasn't even Clinton's ideal tax code.

- The rich have gotten richer and the poor poorer since Jan 2001. Going back to Clinton's rates still constitutes a relative benefit (ie regressivity) for the rich. It may be worse than Bush's code for the rich, but that was such a smash and grab they didn't expect to keep anyway. They'd be happy to go back to 2001 and have the public confuesed into thinking the middle class was getting something good, when it constitutes a slide backwards.

[redqueen]

74. Ow, my head.

"Why is that Dean's ideal? It wasn't even Clinton's ideal tax code."

"They'd be happy to go back to 2001 and have the public confuesed into thinking the middle class was getting something good, when it constitutes a slide backwards."

Time to start practicing:

Oh, Canada! Our home and ....

[dsc]

78. Flat our false

Clinton's tax plan was passed with zero, as in not one, Republican vote. To call that a compromise with Republicans is pure fiction. It wasn't even a compromise with the most conserative Democrats as he didn't get every Democratic vote either.

The SS tax was included for two reasons. One is that it is a Dean proposal. The second is that at the time it was being criticised for being regressive by other posters. It was also being misrepresented. I put it in to set the record straight. BTW, to my knowledge it isn't universal to every Democrat. I have no idea what any candidate's position on this is save Dean and Kucinich who both are in favor. It is possible it is a universal idea but I frankly doubt it.

The bottom line is that this thread's orginal post told a story the author liked instead of the truth. Those you do deserve props for actually answering. Too bad the original poster and the poster who inferred Dean people won't answer attacks had done the same.

[AP]

79. dsc, you're going to have to stop labelling posts as "false", especially

when they aren't.

The 93 budget didn't contain every single tax law that was passed between Jan 92 and Jan 01. In fact, that budget was mostly spending bills, and I don't know if it had very many tax laws at all.

One of the more regressive tax laws passed during that time was the reduction in the cap gains rate, which I think was in 97 or 98, which would have been under a republican controlled congress. I suspect that there are hundreds of tax laws that increased regressivity that were riders to bills that Democrats needed passed, and I'm sure there were hundreds of progressive laws that didn't get the time of day in republican-controlled committees.

The fact is, Clinton's ultimate tax code in 2001 was nowhere near as progressive as he wanted it, and lot of that was due to the fact that Repulbicans controlled both housese of Congress for most of his time in office, and especially during the time when the economy grew rapidly when the brackets and rates really should have changed to match economic reality.

I have the vague impression that every Dem has said something about the payroll tax being ridiculous. Didn't this come up in a debate?

[dsc]

81. The debate you mention

was the one I quoted in my post. As I recall on Kucinich and Dean were asked about it. They both wanted to remove the cap but to fund different things. Graham also favored it but he is no longer running. The rest weren't asked as I recall.

The idea that the 93 budget plan didn't contain very many tax laws at all is absurd. It was the entire tax framework for Clinton. It included the removal of the cap on the Medicare tax, the increase in marginal rates on the richest Americans, increases in the EIC, the increase in the gas tax, and the increase in taxes on pensions and disability payments for upper middle class and wealthy retirees. Yes, in the late 90's capital gains taxes were reduced, and to my knowledge not one candidate is calling for that to be repealed, but that was, in the general scheme of things, small potatoes compared to what Clinton did in 93.

[AP]

83. that is a bald faced lie.

See what that's like.

Edwards wants a two-tiered cap gains rate, making it progressive. "Repealing" tax laws isn't the only way to talk about them.

Tax laws are passed every year.

Changing the cap gains rate opened the door for the whole stock option BS in which rich people, Bush and Cheney included, were able to take 95-99% of their income in a form taxed at a lower rate than the rates Drs and lawyers and other well-paid middle class professionals paid on their earned income.

That law caused a ton of regressivity. A ton.

[dsc]

85. I didn't say you lied but that the statement was false

and I stand behind the fact that it is false to say that, as you did, there were very few tax changes in Clinton's budget plan. That is nothing short of absurd.

Cutting capital gains didn't lead to stock options. The problem, which everyone agrees with, is that those options weren't being expensed. That is a completely different.

I would like a link to Edwards' plan.

[AP]

88. Again with the falsities!

See what it's like, again.

I said that it was my impression that it was mostly a spending bill rather than a tax law bill. OK, so there was important tax stuff in it. But the tax code is written every year. Show me a link to the bill and I'll decide for myself if it was mostly tax code or mostly spending. I believe I admitted that I was going on memory.

If you think lowering the rate on cap gains had little to do with the stock option craze...well, it's just very revealing.

dsc, you can't squeeze round pegs into square holes. Clinton's tax code in 2001 was regressive. Just because a budget bill was passed in 93 which didn't get any Republican votes doesn't mean the Republicans weren't responsible for the fact that in 2001 after 3 years of a very different economy from even 98 (much less '93) the code was extremely regressive and not within the control of Clinton to fix. Yet Dean wants to go back to the 2001 code. It's madness. Actually, it's sort of conservative, in the right wing Republican sense.

www.johnedwards2004.com

[dsc]

89. Until you provide a link

I won't be anytime soon. Also that bill is a matter of public record. It was the largest issue in Congress that year and an issue in the election of 94. It seems that one shouldn't have to provide a link for that. Also you didn't say "most of the bill was other things" you said "there were very few tax changes in the bill" those are utterly differnt statements. To illustrate, we spend most government money on things other than defense but no one would say we spend little government money on defense.

[AP]

90. Just give me any link so I know I'm looking at the 93 appropriations

bill you claim contains all those things...

But lets not lose sight of reality here. Dean wants to return to a 2001 tax code which you claim was established in 93.

The 93 economy had very little similarity to the 98-2000 economy and if we were in fact working to 93 rates and structures, it's even more regressive than I was arguing.

Furthermore, the cap gains change (under a Republican controlled congress) in 97 or 98 set the tone for a lot of regressivity that happeend after that by allowing VERY RICH people to take huge amounts of income taxed at 25% rather than 39% (or whatever the top rate was at that time).

Edwards wants to change the cap gains problem. Dean just wants to go back to the 2001 code. Dean wants regressivity. Others want progressivity.

[dsc]

91. Give me a break

What I say was in the bill. For Christ's sake did you sleep through 1994? Were you on Mars? Heck, even now Gephardt amoung other mention the very tax increases in that bill you are claiming I say were in there. This isn't a link to the bill but it is the best I am going to do at 1:30 in the morning.

http://www.kellysite.net/taxes.html

It has a series of articles which descirbe the bill.

[AP]

92. Give me answers.

You're saying that Dean wants to go back to a tax code that made sense for the American economy in 1993?

You're saying that a tax code that was on cuspt of not making sense in 2001 makes great sense in 2003?

You're saying that the cap gains rate change doesn't have a regressive influence on the economy?

And you know as well as I that in a 50:50 divided senate, the bill that came out of committee, even if no Republican voted for it, was still the product of COMPROMISE.

Why does Dean want to look backwards.

And why the short temper and unpleasant personality?

[dsc]

93. Check your facts

In 1993 the Senate had 54 (not 50 Democrats) and 46 (not 50 Republicans). No I will not provide a link for that you can find that yourself. 4 Democrats voted against that budget. Two I know of were Nunn of Georgia and Exon of Nebraska. It was not a tied Senate.

I didn't say capital gains tax cuts weren't regressive. I did say, and stand behind, that capital gains tax cuts were not responsible for the popularity of stock options. Again, everyone says that it was the fact they weren't being expensed which led to their popularity.

The 1993 tax code was doing just fine thank you. Over 20 million new jobs. Lowest unemployment in history. Low inflation. Lowest minority unemployment in history. Highest home ownership rates in history. Highest minority home owner ship in history. Lowest poverty since the height of the war on poverty. Largest drop in poverty since Johnson. Largest tax cuts for the working poor in history. Yea, I think that deserves looking back to.

[AP]

94. Answer the questions.

The vote was 50:50. I didn't say the Dems were 50 and Repubs were 50. I'm saying there were 50 who wanted to make it a little better and 50 who didn't.

Lowering the cap gains rate gave people a way to get a lot of money from what was essentially work but taxed at a rate way lower than earned income. Don't be a financial advisor if you don't see how this can be easily exploited by the narrow class of Americans who can chose to take their income in the form of stock options.

The wealthy are something like 165% wealthier than they were in 1992. That means way more peoople would have creeped up into the top bracket. It means the top bracket has people at the extreme end making way more money. It makes the top bracket de facto flat for more people farther out and it makes less fair for all the people at the bottom of it who creeped into it.

Meanwhile the middle quintiles are carrying way more consumer debt, and rent and other costs (like healthcare) have gone up for the bottom quintiles, making their incomes worth less, but you want to tax them the same as in 1993!

Sometimes you gotta say, OK, Dean is wrong about this. Going back to 2001 rates is dumb given the changes in wealth and poverty just in 3 years. Going back to 93 rates is suicidal.

[dsc]

100. You may not have meant to

but this is what you said.

"And you know as well as I that in a 50:50 divided senate, the bill that came out of committee, even if no Republican voted for it, was still the product of COMPROMISE."

A 50/50 divided Senate means 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats. Those are your words so don't try to play games of "I didn't say that." You did. Every Committee had a Democratic majority.

As to this

"The wealthy are something like 165% wealthier than they were in 1992. That means way more peoople would have creeped up into the top bracket. It means the top bracket has people at the extreme end making way more money. It makes the top bracket de facto flat for more people farther out and it makes less fair for all the people at the bottom of it who creeped into it."

Show me any candidate's plan to add a new top bracket starting at some very high income. I don't think that even Kucinich has one.

As to this

"Meanwhile the middle quintiles are carrying way more consumer debt, and rent and other costs (like healthcare) have gone up for the bottom quintiles, making their incomes worth less, but you want to tax them the same as in 1993!

Sometimes you gotta say, OK, Dean is wrong about this. Going back to 2001 rates is dumb given the changes in wealth and poverty just in 3 years. Going back to 93 rates is suicidal."

This is too absurd for words. Tax rates had nothing whatsoever to do with your first paragraph. Cuts in government spending, necessitated by Bush's tax cuts, did. In return for the elimination of health care costs the working poor and lower middle class will lose in many case no tax cut at all and in other a very measley one. They will be way, way, way ahead of the game. To use one example. I would have my taxes increased by around $400 bucks. In return I would get benefits worth close to $2000. There are literally millions of people in my position.

[AP]

101. You really think the 93 code is good enough for 2003 economy?

- Lieberman wants to add two new higher brackets. He announced that a week ago. All the candidates talk about progressivity way more that Dean. Dean just says the middle class is too rich to get a break.

- The cost of living has everything to do with the value of your income. $40K was worth more in 93 than in 2003, and fewer people made 40K then. It made sense to have a tax code then which treated this like it was more valuable. It doesn't make sense today.

- Cuts in services are a separate issue. Progressivity is an issue in itslef -- and it's the most important issue. You can have a regressive code that raises a ton of money, and cuts no services. That doesn't mean you're going ot have a great economy as a result. A slave plantation where the vast majority of the wealth produced shifts up to the planation owner is a slave plantation regardless of whether you get 2000 bucks worth of health care and services or 400 dollars worth of health care and services.

Our regressive tax code is not unlike a slave plantation. The middle class works its ass off, and all the benefits go right up to the top. The tax code is the biggest tool Republicans use to achieve this shift of wealth. Even when they're ripping off 401(k)s, it was the tax code which started the whole thing (along with the 15% cap gains rate for selling your stocks which you got from a stock option in lieu of salary taxed at 39%).

What Dean proposes addresses the health care the wage slaves gets, but it doesn't address the structural problems which is turning the US into one big wage slave plantation.

- What's really "absurd" is that you have formed your opinion on the sensibility of Dean's tax plan without having any appreciation for these issues.

[dsc]

104. Do you have a link for Lieberman's plan

I would like to look at it myself.

[AP]

106. I'm not telling until you answer those other questions.

Is Dean the master on the wage slave plantation, or is he going to overthrow the plantation system?

[AP]

102. And I'm going to deal with this separately, because it's a tangent.

If the Seante was divided 50:50 on this bill (and it was) it's is very obvious that what they came up was fine-tuned to win, even if it took Gore's vote.

What do you think they dropped out of that bill so they wouldn't loose the 5th democratic vote? Perhaps something even more progressive.

I can't believe I'm debating this with you. This one's a big "D.U.h."

[dsc]

103. The only change made

at least as I remember it, was that a general energy (BTU) tax was altered to be a gas tax. No other tax related horse trading occured. And, in any case, as you just noted that would have been compromise with a Democrat in any case. You were claiming, falsely, that this was a compromise with Republicans. Face it, you are flat our wrong here. Maybe you honestly thought it was but it wasn't and I have proven it to be the way I said it was.

[AP]

105. What I'm saying is that Deans IDEAL tax plan is something that was right

down the middle...in NINETEEN NINETY-THREE!!!! And this is an issue which is the single most important issue in America today and it's the way Republicans have ripped off the middle class beginning 30 years ago, but really they started rolling with it in the 90s.

Is Dean a Democrat or what?

And if you know everything that was discussed at every level at government about what needed to go in that bill to ensure 50 Senators to vote for it, then I owe you an apology, Mr Clinton. Or are you Mr Rubin?

[dsc]

107. I assumed you were talking about tax changes

which are what would affect progessivity. The House, since it was a tax bill, passed the bill first. The tax part had one, and only one, change in it. That change was the gas tax. I may be wrong on that but don't think I am. I am sure there was horsetrading going on with pork, golf games, and the like. But as to actual policy changes that was the only one the press reported on at the time.

[AP]

108. The House and Senate pass two different bills and the differences...

...are resolve in committee. Sometimes they make it easy and pass very similar bills. Sometimes they don't. Since I was in a coma for most of 93 and 94, I don't know the facts of this bill. Do you?

Anyway, this is a major tangent for you. Does Dean really want to go all the way back to a tax code that made sense for a 1993 economy, which was the product of compromise and moderation? Or does he have some more ambitious plans for fixing the problems America's having -- a major one being that the tax code is turning America into a wage slave plantation?

[dsc]

115. If you were in a coma back in 93 or 94

then how on God's green earth do you know it was a compomise? Lets review the record here. First, you claimed the Senate was evenly divided and got caught in an error there. Then, you tried to say you didn't really say that though you mentioned Republicans in committee having to agree to the bill (which they didn't). Now, even though you admit to not knowing the facts you state that the bills were actually horrendously differnt and compromises from what Clinton desired.

I want the rates of 93 because they worked. It is that simple.

[AP]

118. That was a joke. Why are you staying away from the thread with Qs?

The 93 rates worked for the 93 economy. When the economy grew in 98-00, there would have been bracket creep, and, voila, what was progressive, becomes regressive.

Since 00, the rich have gotten 10% richer every year, and everyone else is getting poorer, and further in debt. The 01 code wouldn't even make sense today.

dean is SO wrong about this. It isn't even funny. This is the reason he's at the bottom of my list. If you can't come up with a good answer to this questions -- or, I should say, if Dean doesn't develop a committment to progressive taxation, and if he doesn't cut this crap smoke and mirrors BS which is deluding his follower -- he can forget about my enthusiastic support.

dsc, if you read my fist post on this Senat thing I said I didn't know. None of my argument hinges on it. And you know I'm right that any legislation that passes by the vote of the VP is going to be something that aims right down the middle. But you are acting like this is all you got by way of argument. You're really betraying your weakness on the real issue, which is, "why the hell is Dean such a Republican on tax policy?" Why isn't he even aiming for left field?

[dsc]

119. No it isn't

that is completely absurd. It was a partisan bill which is why it needed the VP's vote. I have no earthly idea what thread you mean. If you PM me and tell me where it is I will be happy to see it. Also I would like to see a link of any candidate who is proposing linking brackets to inflation.

[AP]

120. What about the 93 income distribution & marginal dollar valuations makes

the 93 tax code suitable for 2005? For someone who makes such a big deal about people not answering your questions, you sure don't like to answer questions.

I bet you a million dollars that if you asked Bill Clinton if he was happy with the tax code he passed during his eight years, he would have told you that he did the best he could but would have had a more progressive code if Congress would have given it to him. It's not just Republicans in congress serving their big donors.

Nobody wants to link taxes to inflation, but FDR, JFK, and WJC all tried to pass codes which adjusted for the economic realities of the time. That's what they do. Dean wants to adjust the brackets and codes to a time that is a decade old. In 93, should Clinton have said he wanted to use the tax brackets and rates from 83? Or 73? or 63?

No.

Because that's patently absurd. And Dean (along with you, for perpetrating such absurdities) is doing his campaign irreparable damage in my eyes.

And I mean, just above (posts 106, 105 or thereabouts), where I'm asking you these same questions.

[dsc]

121. I checked before I posted

and what I suspected is true. We do index tax brackets. Don't beleive me look here. We have since 1981.

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/readingsintaxpolicy.nsf/0/7CA95AB15412338785256879006D4DA4?OpenDocument

1] The Economic Recovery Act of 1981 indexed the brackets of the personal income tax to the CPI starting in 1985. This ensures that tax revenues do not rise as a fraction of income when the CPI rises. However, this system has an important flaw, namely that both reductions in the growth rate of the CPI for a given increase in household income and increases in real per capita income lead to higher effective tax rates. A more logical aim is to prevent tax revenues from rising as a fraction of income when income rises whether this increase is due to inflation or to productivity growth. To achieve this aim while maintaining a progressive income tax code, tax brackets should be indexed to average individual (or household) income.

That is why no one is calling for indexing, it is already being done. So it isn't the brackets of 1993 as you repeatedly and inaccurately stated.

[AP]

123. So what is it Dean wants to do when he says he wants to go back to 2001?

Does he want those trax brackets and rates, which don't make sense for today?

And what about all the regressive elements of the tax code which go beyond brackets and tax rates (eg, reducing the cap gains rate to 15% in 97 or 98). What's Dean's position on those? Keep them because we had them in 2001, even though we don't have the economy or the income distribution and wages we had in 2001?

And what about that argument that the 2001 tax code was set in stone in 1993? Do we believe that or not? If not, do we believe that the code in 2001 was the code that Clinton WANTED or the code that Clinton GOT. Do we believe that all the CPI-indexed changes on trax brackets (not rates) kept everything hunky dory from 1994 to 2001 in terms of progressivity (ignoring for a moment, everything else going on in the tax code).

By the way, I skimmed that article. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument is that CPI indexing has been inadequate, and the tax brackets have not matched actual changes in income, thus creating a relatively more regressive tax code than we could otherwise have. (But what do you want to be that Republicans and not so progressive Dems knew what they were doing when they use the CPI as the guage?).

[dsc]

126. I have no idea if the central premise ot the article

that better indexing is needed is accurate or not. I am no tax expert. But you, who are continually decrying everyone else as a tax dunce, cleary thought there was no indexing at all. That, as that article shows, was false. Yet again, you come up with yet new things to complain about. Just once, I would like you to admit that you were wrong. You stated, wrongly, that the Senate was equally divided and thus Republican votes were needed to advance the bill from committee. That was just wrong. Now, you state over and over again that there is no indexing and again you are wrong. Is the indexing adequate, I have no clue. But it does exist that I do know.

[AP]

127. You're a strange bird.

I knew that the brackets changed slightly every year. But it's nowhere near, say, the annual 10% increase in the wealth of the wealthy.

I didn't state once that they weren't indexed, yet you say I have "over and over."

I didn't know it was linked to CPI. I'll totally admit that. I presumed it required legislation every year. I did know the brackets barely changed. Which, I believe, is the point the article you cited was making -- they don't change enough to match the actual changes in wealth/poverty.

Dsc, go back to my post about the senate which you seem to find so much pleasure in citing. In my post I said "I don't know"...I think I even said "I presume"...if I didn't, it was clearly implied from the "I don't know" part. And the senate WAS equally divided. Gore had to break the vote. You really don't think that they had to carefully tailor the bill so that they could get it passed? If you don't understand that much, then I totally understand why you're being so thick-skulled about the rest of this.

If you want to use this an excuse for not explaining why Dean wants to look backwards for his tax plan to an era which is gone, so be it. But I'll keep bringing this up, and asking the question.

[AP]

128. Forget the article for a second. Do YOU think the tax rates/bands are...

...progressive? Do you think they've kept up with the 165-200% increase in wealth of the wealthiest Americans and the 10% increase in the number of people to poor to feed themselves this year?

Did a CPI-tied increase in the change in the brackets account for that? The top bracket has started at around 300K for the last ten years. Do you think that has changed with the realities of the economy?

I'm asking you YOUR opinon.

What do YOU think?

As for your article, it believe that the CPI-linked changes in the bracket have vastly undercounted the increase in wealth. That was your evidence.

[dsc]

129. I think Clinton's bands were progressive

perfect, no but progressive yes. No one too poor to buy food got a tax break from Bush. No one below the poverty level has any taxable income and none of his breaks were refundable. So therefore, Dean is not harming one of those people by refusing to keep any of Bush's cuts.

While you didn't utter the words "they aren't indexed" there is no other meaning to saying the brackets as they existed in 1993 and the economy of 1993 than the idea that they weren't. Again, they are.

Finally, I think that the highest bracket didn't keep up with the increase is a good thing if indeed it didn't. Say in 1993 the top bracket started at 200k. Say that now people making 200k are averaging 375k. Now say the bracket is at 250k. Wouldn't that increase taxes on the wealthy?

[AP]

130. Do you want to guess how much the bands shifted up from 94-01?

I really don't know. But I'd guess, say, $15,000 for the bottom of the top bracket.

What do you think? if the top 1% got 50% wealthier during that time, that would, in theory justify the bottomm of the top band going from 300K to 450K.

Now, when I complain that a change from, say 285k to 300k over eight glorious years of wealth creation for the wealthiest Americans is not sufficiently progressive, do you think that I've committed a capital crime? Is that a hanging matte. Dsc, you're a strange stray cat. Does your mother know you howl like that?

As for your question, no, it would mean that now all those middle class people who make 200-250K and are suffering from higher prices, and more debt, are paying at a lower rate. This is the problem JFK was confronted with in '61. During the Truman and Eisenhower years more and more middle class were making incomes which were once considered rich people's salaries, but were, in 63, barely paying for the house, car, a school for the kids, yet they were being taxed in the top income bracket. And within that bracket, it was a de facto flat tax meaning that the super rich were doing great, partly because the middle class could never catch up, which is what flat taxes do (they burden the people at the bottom of the band way more than people at the top of the band).

Eisenhower, afraid of Republicans being labeled the party of the rich if he gave this growing middle class tax relief (in the form of progressivity), wouldn't give them a break. JFK did.

One way to deal with this is lower the tax rates. You can do that alone, or in conjunction with expanding the width of the tax brackets (and you can throw in dozens of other things, like tax breaks targeted for middle class investments -- house, education, savings, etc). Infation demands that the bands spread out (or that you have a constantly variable rate). But, clearly, they haven't spread out as far as they should have from 93 to 01 (and from 01-04).

[dsc]

132. wow

what unmittigated revisionism. Here are some real facts.

Here is what you wrote

As for your question, no, it would mean that now all those middle class people who make 200-250K and are suffering from higher prices, and more debt, are paying at a lower rate. This is the problem JFK was confronted with in '61. During the Truman and Eisenhower years more and more middle class were making incomes which were once considered rich people's salaries, but were, in 63, barely paying for the house, car, a school for the kids, yet they were being taxed in the top income bracket. And within that bracket, it was a de facto flat tax meaning that the super rich were doing great, partly because the middle class could never catch up, which is what flat taxes do (they burden the people at the bottom of the band way more than people at the top of the band).

Here is the truth


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/122653_means20.html

Americans were paying much higher tax rates in JFK's time -- 50 percent in the $32,000 to $36,000 income bracket, and 91 percent on marginal income over $400,000. Today the highest individual income-tax bracket is 38.6 percent. As a nation, we are not overtaxed.

Clearly you were saying those in the highest tax bracket were "barely paying for the house, car, a school for the kids, yet they were being taxed in the top income bracket." The top bracket kicked in at 400k. Even now it is utterly absurd to claim that people making that income have problems doing the above. But this is back in 1962. My parents bought their first house a few years after that for about 8k. Even taking note of the fact that they didn't live in the priciest area on earth but lets assume their house was 1/5 the value of the median. The people making 400k a year could by 20 of them each and every year. Even those in the 50% bracket could have bought a house a year at that rate.

Here are the figures inflation adjusted. Calculations done by
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

32k = $183,109.48
36k = $205,998.16
400k = $2,288,868.46

I am willing to concede that income taxes needed cutting back then. I wouldn't want to see a 50% rate on people making between around 180k and 200k. But it is just absurd historical revisionism to portray those paying the highest bracket were having trouble making ends meet. It is also absurd to call a tax code which has rates that increase steadly up to the modern day equivalent of over $2 million flat. It should also be noted that Kennedy almost certainly had to have eliminated some of these brackets thus making the code flater than he found it. (If nothing else he had to have collapsed the tax brackets between 70% and 94%).

[AP]

133. Psst...you get taxed on your total family income.

Granted, only, one spouse need to work back then during the golden age of economic development, because the money was flowing and expenses were low throughout the 50s. Things are different today, and the changes began in the early 60s.

Today, 205K is less than two first year married lawyers make in most large cities in America. So, two 16K earners in '63 (a college professor and a teacher?) or one first year doctor paid 50% marginal rates? How many people fell into that bracket 10 years earlier? And what do you think the debt load was for that kind of couple in the 60s?

And, thanks for the numbers. I never had the time to look them up before. Now I can make the same argument I made with you, but more precisely.

I can say that upper middle class people, and married doctors and lawyers paid at a rate higher than anyone pays for anything today, 50%. Only huge estates where testators didn't have the foresight to form a trust pay at rates that high.

I was guessing on the brackets before. Now I'm glad I have the numbers. As I said, it makes the argument more powerful.

[dsc]

134. huh?

You claimed those in the highest bracket (making some $2 million in today's money) had problems making ends meet. You claimed that this was a flat tax code despite having brackets going up to over $2 million in today's money. Both are howlingly false. You have some point on the rate those making around $200,000 in today's money were paying but they weren't paying the same rate as the richest Americans (something you claimed was true) nor can they be said to be having trouble making ends meet.

[AP]

135. I didn't know the brackets and rates. But now that I do, my argument is

still right.

Bracket creep. That's why you can't go backwards. Dean wants to go backwards.

I'd like to see the rates below 32K and the rates between 36K and 400K.

A family making 5K in 53 was the kind of family making 15K in 63, and they were experiencing bracket creep too.

Do you undertand that?

This isn't a quiz on precise numbers. It's an argument on principles. Your trying to turn this into a quiz on numbers because you can't win the argument when it's about principles, because Dean's principles on tax policy are among the worst of the candidates running.

[dsc]

136. No you are mistating facts

I am merely catching you on this. BTW it took quite a few articles to find what I did. Happy hunting.

[AP]

137. You're so funny, because the articles you cite prove my point.

Bracket creep. That's why Dean wanting to go back to 2001 is wrong.

Why don't you want to talk about that.

Because, if this is a quiz and I score 98%, you think you win? What's HoHo going to say in the next debate? "I don't have to have a good tax program because AP didn't know the marginal rates and brackets in '63."

I would say it's a lot more incriminating that you display almost no understanding (and/or no concern) for this issue. I score a 98 on the quiz, and you're completely ignorant about progressive taxation, and you win? Right.

[dsc]

138. A 98?

Let's catalogue the errors (all of which have a habit of benefiting you BTW). First, you stated the Senate was 50/50 and thus had evenly staffed committees back in 93, that was false. Then you claimed brackets weren't indexed (they have been since 84 making that claim false). Then you claimed people making 400k in 1963 (modern equivalent of over $2 million) were having trouble making ends meet that was also false. You claimed that the tax code in 1963 was flat for upper middle class taxpayers despite being progressive up to $2 million. (again false)

These aren't trivial details to your argument. On the contrary they are very important. The first fact, which was false, was used by you to claim that the Clinton tax bill was really a compromise with Republicans. The second fact, which was false, was used by you to state that middle class taxpayers were the victims of bracket creep. The third fact, which was false, was used by you to claim that somehow Dean is harkening back to Ike. The fourth fact, which was false, was used by you to try to link Kennedy to your ideas when he, in point of fact, did the opposite.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

131. I wanted to say this separately:

Your last paragraph reveals a deep misunderstanding of the math behind this, which might explain your general failure to grasp the issue, which makes you especiallly susceptible to dean's appealing, yet misleading charms.

What you've described means nothing unless you talk about the rates. However, if the rates for the brackets stay the same, by shifting the brackets out, and say, transposing those brackets on the previous years income earners, you would raise less tax revenue, because you're charging the 200k-250K earners less.

however, the reason you're shifting the brackets out is becuase of wage and wealth inflation (and, we're presuming everyone's income is increasing, and, therefore, you're rasing all the thresholds between brackets -- this isn't happening in the 01-03 period, in which there's evidence that the top quintile is getting richer and some of the other quintiles are getting poorer). So, even though you are lowering the rates for a lot of people just below the new thresholds. There are more people earning more money. So, ultimately, you're raising more revenue (or, at least, the same revenue).

Depending on what the government needs to run intself, you can andjust the tax rates accordingly, so that you're raising more, the same, or less income.

However, it's always important to remember that you HAVE to treat people at different income levels differently in terms of marginal tax rates, just to make sure everyone's pulling equally. So if you can lower tax rates for everyone, you still want different income strata paying different marginal rates.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

124. Who said anything about "ideal?"

It's called a start.

[AP]

125. It's not a start. It's a step backwards.

The economy is always changing, and you need different rates, brackets, etc, for different types of economies.

We had an economy from 93, and especially 98-2001 which conferred HUGE benefits on the wealthy, but asked them to contribute little more (and, actually, less, given the cut in the cap gains rate to 15%), even though they were getting huge benefits. From 2001-2003, we've had an economy which has allowed the top quintile get richer, and everyone else to go backwards, even though we have a bad economy.

To transpose the code as it existed in 2001 (which was still based, basically, a snap shot of the '93-94 economy, with the new cap gains rate thrown in) and the 2004 economy, will still consitute a pretty sweet deal for the rich.

At least Lieberman wants to add two new brackets, and at least Edwards is making the two-tiered cap gains rate a cornerstone of his campaign.

What does Dean say? Let's go back to 2001 and lets simplify the tax code. What does it mean to simply the tax code? Isn't that usually the rallying cry for flat taxers? He does use the word "fair" I believe, but he never says what his idea of fair is.

Is his idea of fair has something to do with going backwards, and if it is anything like his Wall St profit guaranty that he calls an education plan, then I'm suspicious.

Dean's whole chat about taxes, I believe, is an insult to the intelligence of the average Deniac. I know you and dsc are on a mission to defend him, but you, and many others, must know in your heart of hearts that Dean is very lame on this issue.

All you have are the slogans, like "I was doing pretty well in 2000, so lets go back to that tax code." But you don't have the logic.

[AP]

76. Incidentally,

you should know that I would have had responses in those threads. However, I had you on ignore for a long time, so I didn't even see those threads. Now they're locked.

[w4rma]

57. How the Poor Live Now (excerpts from an essay by Gov. Howard Dean)

Howard Dean's essay, "How the Poor Live Now," appears in the December issue of Vanity Fair magazine. Dean looks at the current crisis of poverty in America through the lens of a physician and a governor. The magazine is on newsstands now, but the essay, excerpted here, is not availible at Vanity Fair's website.

Dean describes his experiences as a medical student at Albert Einstein College of Medicine:

Every day in the Bronx, I saw low-income patients who had left serious illnesses untreated because they couldn’t afford to go to the doctor. It was a terrible cycle being played out in slow motion before my eyes: a small, treatable condition appears; it goes unattended, grows into a serious health risk that finally erupts with a vengeance; and the patient lands in the emergency room. The bill is astronomical, and the family is bankrupted.

Any sane person could conclude that this was not the most efficient way for our health-care system to be run, nor the most humane. I had no doubts that capitalism was the best possible economic model (I had been raised as a stockbroker, after all), but there were gaps, inconsistencies, and plain cruelties that the market alone would never address, and not only in health care. It seemed to me that local communities and national government had roles to play in easing the pain of economic inequalities.

Governor Dean continues with an analysis of how the past two decades have drastically changed America's attitudes toward--and solutions for--poverty.

What we have seen since the 1970s is a governmental effort that has ended up directing even more wealth into the hands of those at the top, while the safety net for those at the bottom slowly frays. This has resulted not in a rising tide lifting all boats but in an ever shrinking middle class and a breakdown of our American community. Most critically at risk are families like Robert’s , which have had the odds against them from the beginning, and which now have no recourse available to them other than that offered by a government whose anti-poverty program, they feel, is rapidly becoming little more than “Get a job.”

If only it were that simple. Some American families are on the verge of permanent hunger in spite of the fact that the parents may be working not one but two or three jobs. Their problems are usually not limited to putting food on the table: many such families cannot house themselves or afford to seek treatment for their medical problems. Poverty knows no prejudice: my first patient on my first E.R. rotation in the Bronx was a 13-year-old African-American girl who was dealing with complications from an unwanted pregnancy; my first patient on my first E.R. rotation in Vermont was a 13-year-old girl in exactly the same circumstances, but Caucasian. The face of poverty is rural, it is urban, it is black, white, Hispanic, male, female, young, and old. It is an American face. These families work as hard as any of us, and many work harder than most, and yet many spend their lives one paycheck, one accident, or one medical emergency away from total financial ruin.

And the problem is not confined only to those below the poverty line. As I’ve traveled the country, I’ve felt nothing so much as a sense of fear. People everywhere are afraid that very little separates them from disaster, that their jobs are not secure, and that if they lose their jobs there won't be another one waiting. They know something is wrong in our country, and they don’t know what they can do to make it right. Most are good people who work hard. I have seen their joys, their frustrations, and their attempts to change their reality. The problem is not one of the motivated versus the lazy. It is larger and deeper, and if we are going to address it, we must do it honestly.

Ultimately, the question is: What kind of country will we be? Will we be a country that declares anti-poverty efforts a national embarrassment or a national priority? Will we be a country that values escalating tax cuts for the highest income brackets, or one that values the services that tax cuts inevitably kill through financial starvation? Will we accept the problem of poverty as a consequence of capitalism, or will we strengthen capitalism by restoring fairness? Will we choose leaders who practice a politics that polarizes, or leaders whose politics address the common good, targeting not just those most likely to go to the polls but also those who don’t or can’t? In short, will we close our eyes and ignore one another, or will we stand together as a community?

I do not accept that there is no solution. I know, because in cities and towns across America I have seen remarkable ones. I believe that, since poverty stems first and foremost from a breakdown in community responsibility, community-based solutions can lead the way in helping us understand how to overcome it.
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002289.html#more
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=85936
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50230

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

59. No fair!

Now you're piling on!

Where the hell is my latest issue of VF :kick: !

[LuminousX]

73. I'd like to see

The original poster of this thread and the defenders of the post to come forth and respond to DSC's response or admit that the source was fallacious and this issue isn't an issue.

[madfloridian]

75. I agree that if something is posted incorrectly, they should come defend.

There is too much of this.

This needs a good swift kick waiting for them to respond. Yoo hoo?

[LuminousX]

77. It is a 'Fire-and-Forget' strategy

Post something negative and move on to post another negative thread meanwhile berating people to respond and defend until the defense is made and then there isn't any acknowledgement.

It is frustrating and I am probably breaking some DU rule by even commenting on it.

[Padraig18]

80. LOL!

I like that--- "Fire and forget strategy". I'd never thought to use the term, but that's EXACTLY what it is.

:thumbsup:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

82. Do you believe for a second that the original poster of this thread

has not come back to look at his/her/it "baby" to see what's become of it? Not a chance in hell. The lack of response is damning.


Iow, a cheap shot :kick:

[AP]

84. If you're on ignore, your demand for explanation won't be heard.

You'd have to wait for someon who isn't on ignore to respond to the message so to draw attention to the demand for a response.

[dsc]

86. Why should there have to be a demand to respond?

I highly doubt, in point of fact I would be amazed, if the original poster has himself on ignore. Thus, he or she should be able to see the thread. And thus, he or she should be able to see the posts with the info.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

87. Day 3

:kick:

I need to start rounding up some yellow ribbons for this thread. "Day 3: Politics and Campaigns Held Hostage!"

[redqueen]

96. Wow

See, how it works is... the poster would see his post, and most of the responses, but not the demands for responses from those he/she has on ignore.

[AP]

97. In fact, the only time I, personally, would read

a post by someone on ignore (for instance, demanding a response) would be if someone else had responded to that one with something suggesting there was something worth responding to in the ignored post. Then I _might_ go out of my way to see what was in that ignored post.

However, orphaned posts demanding replies written by people who are on ignore will often go unaddressed. Furthermore, if a lot of people have you on ignore, you might find that the posts you start never get seen at all, and, therefore, go without any comments from the people who you think would reply to them.

It's an interesting little calculus. If you want to enter into dialogues with people, you have to behave like you're interested in dialogues. If you act like you're only intention here is to have the last word, or to repeat slogans ungrounded in logic, then you can do that too, without any dialogue at all...becuase a lot of people will have you on ignore.

[LuminousX]

98. So all of us are on ignore?

Wow.

[AP]

99. Trust me, I have a high threshold for ignore, and you have to say

some pretty silly stuff before I use the zzzzs.

And, as far as being able to engage in productive, interesting debate, I feel like the longer my ignore list gets, the more productive and interesting my debates at DU get.

It's a waste of everyone's time to go back and forth with people who willfully ignore or unintentionally don't have the slightest idea what you're saying or interest in engaging in a dialogue.

[dsc]

109. Both the original poster

and the snarky poster who said Dean supporters never respond to charges have responded to post I have made on several occasions. I find it hard to believe, nay impossible to believe, that I am either one of their ignore lists.

[AP]

110. You can be on ignore and still get a reply though.

From personal experience, if an ingored poster gets no repsonses to their post that I can see, I won't bother looking at the post.

If an ignored poster gets interesting replies to a post, and I can see those interesting responses, I might go out of my way to read the post which is ignored. And you can still reply to it by hitting reply, logging in, backing up two or three screens, and hitting reply again.

[redqueen]

113. This is so dumb...

I'm not surprised nobody has responded, but since you seem to be pounding your fist demanding someone post a response HERE, here goes:

Whether or not the $30 Million Dean gave to prisons was indeed accurately represented by the correct percentage with respect to the amount given to other programs is moot.

The real substance of the matter (and the badly written article has provided you an opening, but you can't ignore the substance), is that he gave this $30 Million to prisons while he was claiming the budget was in such a shambles that he had to cut $30 Million from other programs.

This is glaringly suspicious, because:

- Vermont has low crime
- He has a shoddy record of dealing fairly with public defenders office

That's all I have time for today. This thread just isn't worth it. Will check back if this issue is still being argued tomorrow.

[dsc]

114. My point is that we know no such thing

I haven't commented on the other stuff due to an inablitly to check their sources. None of them are on line so I can't check them for accuracy of reporting quotes. I checked what I could and all of what could be checked was inaccurate. This I think it is folly to trust they all of the sudden became accurate on the other stuff.


BTW It is posts like this one which is why I am raising the big stink.

Are they facts or lies? The footnotes show them to be facts.


If they are lies, counter them.


We are accused, habitually, of never answering these things. I take the time and considerable effort to do so and I get nada. Yet, and you can count on this, the next time this article gets posted we will see, from the very same poster this:

Are they facts or lies? The footnotes show them to be facts.


If they are lies, counter them.


That is why I lose my temper. I am tired of that crapola.

[redqueen]

116. What exactly do you want proof of?

To me, it's not about accusations or innuendo.

The fact that he paid for a new prison while the budget was 'so bad', combined with his statements / record wrt the public defenders office is alarming.

Do you want me to back that up?

What are you looking for, exactly?

[dsc]

117. among other things

did he cut the budget by what they said he did. I could only check on the prision vs college comparision and it was clearly utterly wrong. Did he actually say what they are claiming he said? Again there are many, many endnoted details. I checked the only ones I could. Those turned out to be flat out false. Ann Coulter had endnotees, quotes and figures too. Frankly, I don't think you will have any better luck tracking down their sources than I did but best of luck.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

111. Day 4

:kick:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

112. Day 5

:kick:

[mitchum]

122. kick

[drfemoe]

140. Dean's Results #1

“As a physician, I've seen the suffering caused by this nation's health care crisis, and as Governor, I know it can be solved.”

Health Care — 96% of Vermont’s children have health care coverage thanks in part to Governor Dean’s Dr. Dynasaur program, and an additional 3% are eligible for coverage.
Access — Governor Dean expanded health care for children in low to middle income families. Children 18 or under, whose families are at or below 300% of the Federal Poverty Line, are eligible for insurance at virtually no cost.
MentalHealth — In 1997, Howard Dean signed the what was then and still is the most comprehensive behavioral health care parity legislation in the United States. Comprehensive parity simply means that health insurance companies must provide the same degrees and types of coverage for mental illness and substance-abuse treatment that they provide for physical conditions.
Women’s Health — During Governor Dean’s tenure, the breast and cervical cancer rate went from slightly above average to below the US average, thanks to Vermont’s comprehensive screening system. Vermont’s Medicaid program was also expanded to cover treatment for women diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer.
Teen Pregnancy — Under Governor Dean, teen pregnancy rates dropped 49%, to the lowest rate in the country.
“Healthy Families Visionary Leadership Award” — Presented by Prevent Child Abuse America.



“Give children hope by investing in prevention.”

Success By Six — As a doctor, Governor Dean has placed a strong emphasis on early childhood prevention and health care, which is why 89% of pregnant Vermont women enter prenatal care in the first trimester of pregnancy. In Vermont, 91% of families with a birth received a community visit, and those parents who wanted assistance and support received it.
Dr. Dynasaur — Governor Dean has expanded children and pregnant women’s access to health care. Currently 58,903 children are covered under the program. Dr. Dynasaur covers children up to the age of 18 within families up to 300% of the Federal Poverty Line.
Child Abuse — During Governor Dean’s tenure, Vermont was the first state to institute a statewide protocol for abuse investigations. In return, Vermont saw a 45% decline in physical and sexual abuse of children. This included a 64% decline in physical abuse victims ages 0-3 and a 43% decline in physical abuse victims ages 0-6.
Child Sexual Abuse — 84% decline in sexual abuse victims ages 0-3 and 70% decline in sexual abuse victims ages 0-6.
Immunization — 81.1% of children are fully immunized by age 2 and 97% by the time they start kindergarten, which makes Vermont second in the nation in child immunizations.



“We can provide higher quality of life by avoiding institutional services whenever possible.”

Prescription Drugs — Governor Dean understands the importance of access to prescription drugs in preserving the health and avoiding unnecessary institutional care of our seniors and people with disabilities. While in office Governor Dean expanded pharmaceutical assistance to these Vermonters. Vermont has three pharmacy assistance programs with the level of benefits for each program indexed to household income. Seniors and people with disabilities can have incomes up to 225% of the federal poverty line and receive assistance with their prescriptions.
Nursing Homes — Governor Dean decreased the state’s reliance on nursing homes by mandating that funds be shifted from nursing homes to other services, such as home health care where people can live with independence and dignity. Over $30 million dollars has been shifted from paying for nursing homes to paying for in-home and community based services.
Home Health Care — Between 1996 and 2000, there was a 161.3% increase in individuals receiving a home based waiver and services, while there was a decrease of 13.5% of individuals living in nursing homes.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_record_health

[drfemoe]

141. Dean's Results #2

Dean's Record on Health Care Access

“As a physician, I've seen the suffering caused by this nation's health care crisis, and as Governor, I know it can be solved.”

Health Care – 96% of Vermont’s children have health care coverage thanks in part to Governor Dean’s Dr. Dynasaur program, and an additional 3% are eligible for coverage.

Access – Governor Dean expanded health care for children in low to middle income families. Children 18 or under, whose families are at or below 300% of the Federal Poverty Line, are eligible for insurance at virtually no cost.

Mental Health – Howard Dean was the first Governor in the nation to sign the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Parity Act. This bill guarantees coverage for mental illness and substance abuse at the same level as severe illness.

Women’s Health – During Governor Dean’s tenure, the breast and cervical cancer rate went from slightly above average to below the US average, thanks to Vermont’s comprehensive screening system. Vermont’s Medicaid program was also expanded to cover treatment for women diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer.

Teen Pregnancy – Under Governor Dean, teen pregnancy rates dropped 49%, to the lowest rate in the country.

“Healthy Families Visionary Leadership Award” – Presented by Prevent Child Abuse America.
Dean's Record on Children's Health Care

“Give children hope by investing in prevention.”

Success By Six – As a doctor, Governor Dean has placed a strong emphasis on early childhood prevention and health care, which is why 89% of pregnant Vermont women enter prenatal care in the first trimester of pregnancy. In Vermont, 91% of families with a birth received a community visit, and those parents who wanted assistance and support received it.

Dr. Dynasaur – Governor Dean has expanded children and pregnant women’s access to health care. Currently 58,903 children are covered under the program. Dr. Dynasaur covers children up to the age of 18 within families up to 300% of the Federal Poverty Line.

Child Abuse – During Governor Dean’s tenure, Vermont was the first state to institute a statewide protocol for abuse investigations. In return, Vermont saw a 45% decline in physical and sexual abuse of children. This included a 64% decline in physical abuse victims ages 0-3 and a 43% decline in physical abuse victims ages 0-6.

Child Sexual Abuse – 84% decline in sexual abuse victims ages 0-3 and 70% decline in sexual abuse victims ages 0-6.

Immunization – 81.1% of children are fully immunized by age 2 and 97% by the time they start kindergarten, which makes Vermont second in the nation in child immunizations.
Dean's Record on Serving the Elderly

“We can provide higher quality of life by avoiding institutional services whenever possible.”

Prescription Drugs – Governor Dean understands the importance of access to prescription drugs in preserving the health and avoiding unnecessary institutional care of our seniors and people with disabilities. While in office Governor Dean expanded pharmaceutical assistance to these Vermonters. Vermont has three pharmacy assistance programs with the level of benefits for each program indexed to household income. Seniors and people with disabilities can have incomes up to 225% of the federal poverty line and receive assistance with their prescriptions.

Nursing Homes– Governor Dean decreased the state’s reliance on nursing homes by mandating that funds be shifted from nursing homes to other services, such as home health care where people can live with independence and dignity. Over $30 million dollars has been shifted from paying for nursing homes to paying for in-home and community based services.

Home Health Care< – Between 1996 and 2000, there was a 161.3% increase in individuals receiving a home based waiver and services, while there was a decrease of 13.5% of individuals living in nursing homes.
Dean's Record on Prescription Drug Costs

“As a physician, I've seen the suffering caused by this nation’s health care crisis, and as a Governor, I know it can be solved.”

Drug Patent Reform – Governor Dean was founder of Business for Affordable Medicine (BAM), a coalition of governors, business and organized labor with one objective - closing loopholes used by brand name drug manufacturers to prevent or delay lower-priced generic drugs from reaching the marketplace when patents expired. Governor Dean created and coordinated unanimous passage of NGA policy on the need to reform the Hatch-Waxman Act. Thanks to his leadership with other governors, the U.S. Senate and House have included provisions that would close some loopholes in the currently pending Medicare prescription drug bill.

Preferred Drug Lists and Supplemental Rebates – Under Governor Dean, Vermont has been a leader in lowering drug costs in the Medicaid program. Dean wants to expand these measures nationally:



Preferred Drug Lists (PDLs) to ensure that doctors and patients use less expensive medications where clinically possible. Vermont started with one class of drugs - Gastric acid reducers – which includes the highly-advertised drugs Prilosec and Nexium, and put a less expensive therapeutically equivalent alternative drug on the preferred list. The results have been remarkable: Vermont’s Medicaid expenditure on gastric acid reducers has been slashed by 43%.

Forcing Pharmacy Benefits Managers (PBMs) to have transparent contracts with the manufacturers to disclose any financial incentives they might receive from drug manufacturers. Vermont was one of the first states to implement such an agreement, and this is another step that Governor Dean wants to take nationally.

Finally, Vermont last summer expanded the PDL and began to negotiate supplemental rebates with drug companies, in addition to those the companies provide in accordance with federal Medicaid law.
The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group known as PhRMA filed suit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, questioning HHS’ authority to grant states the ability to use PDL’s. Governor Dean organized 22 other Governors who sent a letter of support to Secretary Tommy Thompson on August 12, 2002. In addition, Governor Dean organized a press conference on this suit with other Governors at the National Governors Association summer meeting.

Disclosure of Gifts to Doctors – Last June, Governor Dean signed a bill into law which, among other things, made Vermont the first state in the nation to require pharmaceutical manufacturers to disclose the value, nature, and purpose of any gift, fee, subsidy, or other economic benefit provided to any physician, hospital, nursing home, pharmacist or health benefit plan administrator in Vermont.

Re-importation for personal use – Governor Dean has endorsed the strategy of United Health Alliance’s Medicine Assist program, enabling U.S. citizens to obtain prescription drugs from Canada via fax. Canadian drug prices are, on average, half those in the United States. Governor Dean has held numerous press conferences encouraging people to take advantage of the plan to make their prescription drug costs more affordable.

A Strong Record of Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence

"Domestic violence impacts every aspect of a victim's life and is a problem that requires a community response. – Howard Dean, MD"

Child Custody – Governor Dean signed a law that requires judges to consider evidence of abuse when determining parental rights in divorce cases.

Child Support – Governor Dean signed the Abuse Prevention and Child Support law which requires abusers to pay child support and living expenses to spouses who request court protection and have no other means of support.

Confidentiality – Governor Dean signed a law entitled the Address Confidentiality for Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Stalking, known as the “Safe at Home” program that offers victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking a free and confidential mailing address through the office of the Secretary of State.

Government Involvement – Governor Dean signed an executive order enhancing state assistance to victims of domestic violence. Efforts include raising awareness of domestic violence in local workplaces, providing state employees access to a 24-hour domestic violence resource hotline, and granting state employees who are victims of domestic violence time off from their jobs to seek counseling, medical assistance or alternate housing.

Public Education – Governor Dean included information about domestic violence on the paycheck of every state employee.

Improving Community Response – Governor Dean created the Domestic Violence Fatality Review Commission to examine domestic violence fatalities, identify strengths and weaknesses in the community response to domestic violence, educate the public about intervention and prevention, and recommend policies to reduce fatalities due to domestic violence.

Child Abuse – During Governor Dean’s tenure, Vermont was the first state to institute a statewide protocol for abuse investigations. In that time the incidence of physical and sexual abuse of children declined 45%, including a 64% decline in physical abuse of victims younger than 4 and a 43% decline in physical abuse victims younger than 7. The decline in child sexual abuse was even more dramatic, with a 72% decline in victims younger than 4 and 84% decline in victims younger than 7.

“Healthy Families Visionary Leadership Award” – Presented by Prevent Child Abuse America to Governor Dean in March 2002.

A Strong Record of Accomplishment on Issues Important to Women


Dean's Record on Supporting Women

Women Appointees - Governor Dean appointed more women to positions of leadership during his tenure than any other state. At one point, the percentage of women appointees in his Administration was higher than the percentage of women in the state. Also, about 50% of his judicial appointments were women.

Pro-Choice - Gov. Dean is a strong supporter of abortion rights. He believes that government should not interfere with medical decisions. He stood against legislative proposals that would require parental notification and ban late-term abortions.

Fair Pay - Vermont passed legislation that expands federal wage discrimination laws into state jurisdiction and toughens the law so that the federal standards apply to all Vermont businesses.

Family Leave - Governor Dean is in favor of paid family leave, similar to the legislation that passed in California.
Dean's Record on Health Care

Health Coverage - 96% of Vermont’s children have health care coverage through Governor Dean’s Dr. Dynasaur program, and an additional 3% are eligible for coverage.

Child Immunization - 81.1% of children are fully immunized by age 2 and 97% by the time they start kindergarten, which makes Vermont second in the national in child immunizations.

Prenatal Care - More pregnant women get early, comprehensive prenatal care. Currently about 89% of pregnant women enter prenatal care during first trimester of pregnancy.

Breast Cancer - More Vermont women are being screened for breast cancer, and the death rate from breast cancer is significantly down. It’s now below the U.S. rate thanks in part to Ladies First, the state’s comprehensive breast and cervical cancer screening system.

Teen Pregnancy - During Governor Dean’s tenure, pregnancy rates for young teens dropped 49%. Vermont has the lowest teen pregnancy rate in the country.

Contraceptive Coverage - In 1999, Governor Dean signed a law that requires insurance plans with prescription drug coverage to cover FDA-approved forms of contraceptives. As a doctor, Dean knows that affordable access to family planning is essential for women. Insurance plans that do not cover contraceptives are unacceptable and discriminatory. Vermont is one of only eight states to receive an "A" grade from NARAL for access to contraceptives.
Dean's Record on Children and Families

Child Support – Under Gov. Dean, Vermont’s Office of Child Support has been very successful in meeting the challenge of collecting child support. In 1999, Vermont achieved a rating of 65% of cases with collections. This is the second highest collection rate in the country — in spite of increasing caseloads. The national average was 37% of cases with collections, a figure that Vermont has nearly doubled.

Success by Six – As a doctor, Governor Dean has placed a strong emphasis on early childhood prevention and health care, which is why 89% of pregnant Vermont women enter prenatal care in the first trimester of pregnancy. In Vermont, 91% of families with a new birth received a community visit, and parents who need it, get help and support.

Child Care – Our investment in Child Care Services has increased by 176% since 1991. Unlike some other states, there is no wait list for working parents with young children who are eligible for a childcare subsidy.

Child Abuse – Vermont was the first state to institute a statewide protocol for abuse investigations. In return, Vermont saw a 45% decline in physical and sexual abuse of children. This included a 64% decline in physical abuse victims ages 0-3 and a 43% decline in physical abuse victims ages 0-6.

Welfare Reform – Vermont was the first state to implement a statewide time-limited welfare program. In 1994, two years before federal welfare reform, Vermont reformed its program. Over the course of the 7-year project, caseloads declined by more than 48% and employment and earnings of participants rose more than 42%.

A Record of Commitment to Serving the Elderly


“We can provide higher quality of life by avoiding institutional services whenever possible.”

Prescription Drugs – Governor Dean understands the importance of access to prescription drugs in preserving health and avoiding unnecessary institutional care of our seniors and people with disabilities. While in office Governor Dean expanded pharmaceutical assistance to these Vermonters. Vermont has three pharmacy assistance programs with the level of benefits for each program indexed to household income. Seniors and people with disabilities can have incomes up to 225% of the federal poverty line and receive assistance with their prescriptions.
Nursing Homes – Governor Dean decreased the state’s reliance on nursing homes by mandating that funds be shifted from nursing homes to other services, such as home health care where people can live with independence and dignity. Over $30 million dollars has been shifted from paying for nursing homes to paying for in-home and community based services.

Home Health Care – Between 1996 and 2000, there was a 161.3% increase in individuals receiving a home-based waiver and services, while there was a decrease of 13.5% in individuals living in nursing homes.

[seventhson]

142. Speaking truth to power: Dean's record shows that cuts made...

made it possible to fund OTHER programs which were essential.

CHOICES al;ways have to be made when deciding to get out of a deficit.

The same will be true of Dean as President.

Once there is a economic stability programs can save many more people.

Thanks for the GREAT rebuttal.

It demonstrates why Dean will win.