WSJ op-ed: 'We Can Do Better' by Howard Dean

[Larkspur]

I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003920

<SNIP>
An important part of my program for a full-employment recovery will be extending a helping hand to states and communities. My policies as governor kept Vermont strong fiscally; but all over America, the financial resources of other states and cities are strained to the limit. Teachers are being laid off, highways lack repairs, firehouses are closed. Instead of tax cuts that have not created jobs, we need to make investments in America. I will increase federal aid for special education, and provide more temporary help to the states--for homeland security and school construction and infrastructure modernization. And I will increase the availability of capital for small businesses, so that they can invest in new technology and create more jobs.

No program for economic recovery and growth can ignore the tax system, particularly the bizarre collection of tax expenditures, preferences, credits and deductions which has directed revenues away from the federal treasury and into uneconomic tax avoidance schemes. Average Americans pay their taxes through withholding or quarterly estimates. Meanwhile, corporations and multinational enterprises take advantage of elaborate tax shelters, and billions go uncollected. The need for reform is obvious and compelling, and I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration. But unlike the tax initiatives of the current president, my program of tax reform and relief will be targeted to the average Americans who are struggling to make ends meet--not those whose needs are well provided for.

Finally, maintaining fiscal discipline is essential to long-term growth; discretionary spending must be sustainable, and the federal budget must be balanced over the business cycle.
I balanced every budget during my 11 years as governor, despite the fact that Vermont is the only state with a constitution that doesn't require a balanced budget. To keep spending in line, I will not be afraid to use the veto--a power President Bush has yet to exercise.

Some of these measures will be unpopular, and many will be opposed by the special interests. But the next president must take swift and decisive action to restore the economic well being of our nation's families. They need meaningful jobs at good wages. They need the security of health insurance--no matter how old or young they may be, and without regard to their economic status. They have the right to educate their children to the limits of their abilities, not the limit of their pocketbooks, and to look forward to a secure retirement. In short, they expect a better deal, and deserve no less.

I read in the Providence Journal that Dean plans on coming out with a full economic and tax policy statement in the next 4-6 weeks. This Op Ed looks like the beginning of such a statement, as well as reiterating his basic economic positions.

[Racenut20]

1. In my humble opinion

We can do better THAN Howard Dean.

[el_gato]

2. imho

you can make a better post than a "hit and run"
:eyes:

[ThorsteinVeblen]

4. IMHO

We CAN'T do better than Howard Dean.

There is no one BUT Dean.

[Merlin]

3. This is an excellent piece by Uncle Howard.

Dean/Clark. I feel it coming!

[ThorsteinVeblen]

5. Cleark needs to get off the fence

[realFedUp]

6. Makes sense to me

He addresses the issues I think the country needs.

[AP]

7. Two things about this (taxes and balanced budgets)

First, on taxes, the big problem with taxes is that they are way too regressive. The Democratic nominee needs to articulate a clear message about what is wrong with the tax system today. Calling it 'too complicated' isn't enough. Calling it complicated is like saying the problem with it is too complicated to understand. The problem with taxes is too simple to ignore: through 1000 devices, the huge, rich businesses and individuals are trying to camoflage the fact that their tax burdens are tiny compared to middle income people (who are the workhorses of the economy). And the danger of talking about simplifying the tax codes is that usually this talk lees to simplified proposals which are also regressive (like flat taxes, and fewer brackets all condensed at the lower end of the income tax range).

As for balanced budgets over the business cycle. To me that's code for "we're willing to reduce the size of government when times are lean and we're willing to lower taxes when times are good" both of which are sentiments that would make FDR roll over in his grave. What a progressive tax policy should do is spread the burden in a way that promotes a fair competition and a lot of access to the marketplace for people who otherwise wouldn't have access but for taxpayer-financed public eductation and small business loans, etc. If this balance ends up producing a lot of added tax revenue, it should be reinvested to create even more opportunities, and more progress, and more investment in the future, and taxes should be continously updated in a manner which reinforces progressivity (ie, equallizing tax burdens accross the entire income range). Until there are no starving people in America, and until I'm driving my solar powered flying card (born of federally funded research at a public university), then I don't want to hear a damn thing about 'balancing budgets over the business cycle'.

Business needs to hear moderation from the nominee, sure. But the kind of moderation I'd like to hear from the candidates is more like what I heard from Clinton last week: rich people are going to be way richer in a fair, liberal economy, in which everyone can participate, and wealth is spread fairly. I don't think the moderation they need to hear is that we'll cut your taxes like Republicans promise.