| Subject: Re: Ditto Flip |
Author:
pjk
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10/13/04 10:17:58pm
In reply to:
tjm
's message, "Ditto from the Flipside [too many signees for post limit]" on 10/13/04 8:49:23pm
>John Kerry says he "is committed to balancing the
>budget," but he has proposed additional spending that
>some analysts have estimated could cost as much as
>$226.1 billion annually ($2.261 trillion over ten
>years). He promises to "end corporate welfare as we
>know it" by implementing the "McCain-Kerry commission
>on corporate welfare," but he also proposes to provide
>additional "tax credits and subsidies to
>manufacturers" that meet his criteria.
I'm no economist - but this doesn't seem so far fetch as presented in this paragraph.
>Entitlement reform is the most important fiscal
>challenge facing the country, yet Kerry's approach has
>been to deny that any fix is needed. Indeed, Kerry
>criticized the recent Medicare expansion for not being
>large enough.
I think the "most important" status is debatable - but let's not quibble. I think his approach to health care will save a lot of money in the long run. When Colorado passed its budget last year the Republicans decided to cut pre-natal care for immigrant mothers. The cost was somethinglike $750 per mother in savings. But the long term cost as reported by the conservative Rocky Mountain News was $17,000. I think this letter points at the short term costs and ignores the longterm savings.
>John Kerry has proposed tax increases that threaten to
>sap the economy's vitality and reduce long-term
>growth. Specifically, Kerry proposes to "restore the
>top two [income] tax rates to their levels under
>President Clinton." He would also, among other
>things, "restore the capital gains and dividend rates
>for families making over $200,000 on income earned
>above $200,000 to their levels under President
>Clinton." Kerry's stated desire to balance the budget
>and to boost federal spending substantially would
>almost certainly require far higher and broader tax
>increases than he has proposed.
I think it is disingenous to call rolling back tax cuts as tax increases. To put taxes back to where they were before Bush is only an increase because Bush cut them. The same voices predicted doom and gloom when Clinton hiked them back up on the richest 1% and we had one of the best economies in a long time. Same goes for capital gains and dividends. These have been around for quite some time, in good times and bad. Taxes in and of themselves are not bad if we get something in return, and if it's invested in the future. We could save a lot of money on not repairing roads and what not, but the overall cost to everyone is greater than the money spent. To just call all taxes bad is juvenile. We live a civilization that exists because of taxes. Republicans have done a good job at making taxes a dirty word, but it's irresponsible and immature to think you can have the best army, the best educated and so on without paying for it.
>John Kerry boasts that his economic policies will lead
>to the creation of 10 million jobs in his first term
>as president. As Martin Sullivan wrote last April in
>the strictly non-partisan Tax Notes, no one "has
>presented any analysis to relate the Kerry plan to the
>creation of 1 million jobs, much less 10 million
>jobs."
Fair enough. It'd be nice if we had more people quoting from Tax Quotes.
In fact, we believe Kerry's proposals would,
>over time, inhibit capital formation, depress
>productivity growth, and make the United States less
>competitive internationally. The end result would be
>lower U.S. employment and real wage growth.
Too broad a brush for me. This, to me, is just scare tactic stuff. It doesn't have anything resembling the specifity included in the letter I posted.
>John Kerry has expressed a general reluctance to
>reduce trade barriers. He has promised, if elected, to
>"review existing trade agreements." He vows not to
>"sign any new trade agreements until the review is
>complete and its recommendations [are] put in place."
>That's a prescription for political gridlock. Given
>the widespread benefits of unfettered trade, Kerry's
>trade policies would harm U.S. producers and consumers
>alike.
What's wrong with reviewing existing agreements? It may or may not result in gridlock. I don't think it is a given.
>
>All in all, John Kerry favors economic policies that,
>if implemented, would lead to bigger and more
>intrusive government and a lower standard of living
>for the American people.
blah blah blah
The only thing "ditto" about this letter is the number of signees. (I don't remember any leftwing think tanks padding the numbers) I don't think it compares on a subtantive level.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 