William Greider and John Nichols Defend Dean

[BurtWorm]

Paul Krugman has not said so in so many words, but in an interview with the Guardian, he mentioned only Dean as offering a suitable economic counter to Bushism.

Here's an excerpt from Greider's "Why I'm For Dean"

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20031215&s=greider

...

A more pertinent question is, Why didn't other leading candidates see this tragedy coming? Their reticence was symptomatic of the inert Washington insiders, exceedingly cautious, indifferent to whatever roils the party's rank and file, and always a few steps behind the curve. The explanation that Washington candidates voted for the war on principle or were misled by Bush doesn't help them. Their blindness to the potential consequences (now unfolding) is another reason to be for Dean. He, meanwhile, speaks plainly to the error of US imperialism. "America is not Rome. We do not dream of empire. We dream of liberty for all."

The man also stands his ground in a fight. When someone jabs him, he jabs back. Pundits describe this quality as dangerous, and no doubt it gets him into trouble occasionally, but what a refreshing departure from the rope-a-dope calculations of the Clinton era. This trait is what I like about him most. In my experience, it's more revealing than a politician's positions on issues. With issues, Dean is pretty much what he says: a middle-of-the-road moderate, neither left nor right, though middle in Vermont is liberal ground. As governor, he was skilled at maneuvering through contending forces, sometimes angering both sides in the process.

I first observed these qualities during Dean's second-to-last term as governor. Vermonters were inflamed--everyone was coming after him--when he and Democratic legislators enacted the infamous Act 60, a school-financing-equalization law that compelled the "gold towns" to share their property-tax revenues with poorer townships. Faced with general outrage, Dean barked back at the storm. The remark I remember reading in the Rutland Herald went something like this: "I know why people are angry at me. They've been getting away with low tax rates and well-financed schools. They're not going to be able to do that anymore."

Wow, I thought. This is a different kind of politician--no ducking the blame, no cute obfuscation. The law isn't perfect, Dean added. We will fix it later if we have to. (They did.) Vermont progressives were upset, too, because Dean had refused to consider raising income taxes to finance the schools. His logic, however, was more liberal than it appeared. Raising income taxes would put all the burden on Vermonters, many of whom are poor. Raising property taxes--with a generous homestead exemption for full-time residents--put the big hit on the out-of-state people who own so many lovely vacation homes there. Dean did not explain this to the "flatlanders," but we figured it out.

...


And here is one from John Nichols "Gore's a Dean Man Now":


http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031229&s=nichols


...

Those other candidates, and their amen corner in a Washington press corps that still can't quite accept that the Dean insurgency is for real, struggled mightily to come up with a spin that would allow them to dismiss the Gore intervention. But their attempts to reduce his decision to crass calculation missed the fact that Dean and Gore have been talking, and finding common ground, for months. Perhaps there is some truth to the claim that Gore's move is calculated to improve his standing with the party cadres that adore Dean in order to position himself for a 2008 race, or even that he is intriguing against Bill and Hillary Clinton's none-too-subtle encouragement of retired Gen. Wesley Clark's candidacy. But the word among former aides who remain close to Gore is that the nation's "geek in chief" believes, as many veteran Democrats do, that the Dean camp is securing the party's future by harnessing the power of the Internet and other new technologies for political good. Gore is still dazzled by the fact that MoveOn.org events in which he has participated in recent months have drawn huge and enthusiastic crowds on short notice, and he is convinced the tech-savvy Dean campaign has the potential to translate the MoveOn magic into a November 2004 force to be reckoned with.

...

[Cha]

1. Dean is Dean!

And now Gore is on Board!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

3. that cartoon is going to be a GOP ad soon

it's great though.

[Cha]

4. let them waste their money....

[slinkerwink]

5. ha, great cartoon!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

2. Greider is great

Secrets of the Temple is a must read! Who Will Tell the People is a classic.

[DrFunkenstein]

6. Actually, Krugman Totally Trashed Dean's Economic Plan

Still, those who want to restore fiscal sanity probably need to frame their proposals in a way that neutralizes some of the administration's demagoguery. In particular, they probably shouldn't propose a rollback of all of the Bush tax cuts.

Here's why: while the central thrust of both the 2001 and the 2003 tax cuts was to cut taxes on the wealthy, the bills also included provisions that provided fairly large tax cuts to some — but only some — middle-income families. Chief among these were child tax credits and a "cutout" that reduced the tax rate on some income to 10 percent from 15 percent.

These middle-class tax cuts were designed to create a "sweet spot" that would allow the administration to point to "typical" families that received big tax cuts. If a middle-income family had two or more children 17 or younger, and an income just high enough to take full advantage of the provisions, it did get a significant tax cut. And such families played a big role in selling the overall package.

So if a Democratic candidate proposes a total rollback of the Bush tax cuts, he'll be offering an easy target: administration spokespeople will be able to provide reporters with carefully chosen examples of middle-income families who would lose $1,500 or $2,000 a year from tax-cut repeal. By leaving the child tax credits and the cutout in place while proposing to repeal the rest, contenders will recapture most of the revenue lost because of the tax cuts, while making the job of the administration propagandists that much harder.

Purists will raise two objections. The first is that an incomplete rollback of the Bush tax cuts won't be enough to restore long-run solvency. In fact, even a full rollback wouldn't be enough. According to my rough calculations, keeping the child credits and the cutout while rolling back the rest would close only about half the fiscal gap. But it would be a lot better than current policy.

The other objection is that the tricks used to sell the Bush tax cuts have made an already messy tax system, full of special breaks for particular classes of taxpayers, even messier. Shouldn't we favor a reform that cleans it up?

In principle, the answer is yes. But an ambitious reform plan would be demagogued and portrayed as a tax increase for the middle class. My guess is that we should propose a selective rollback as the first step, with broader reform to follow.

Will someone be able to find the political sweet spot, the combination of fiscal responsibility and electoral smarts that brings the looting to an end? The future of the nation depends on the answer.

http://www.peaceredding.org/The%20Sweet%20Spot.htm

PS - It's hilarious that Grieder happened to pick out the "Rome" line Dean lifted from Kerry's foreign policy speech!

<>

PPS - Did 8 people just step in a pothole?

[KittyWampus]

7. Krugman Already Dismissed Elimination Of Middle Class Tax Cut As Folly

He is also a Free Trader who has written several articles recently warning of Isolationism.

I am not sure what quote from the Guardian you think shows Krugman favorable to Dean's Economic Plan specifically over any other Democratic Candidate...

Would love to read it...

[BurtWorm]

8. You call that "trashing?"

He basically says that the main problem with a total rollback is political, not economic. In fact, he seems to be saying loud and clear that total rollback would be better if not for the politics. That is not "trashing."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1045105,00.html


"One of the Democratic candidates - who I'm not endorsing, because I'm not allowed to endorse - has as his slogan, 'I want my country back'," Krugman says, referring to the campaigning motto of Howard Dean. "I think that's about right."

[Armstead]

9. Krick

Once again Greider says it all.