08/22/2003 Entry: ""
Posted by Maynard @ 02:38 PM MST
Howard Dean is in the Wall Street Journal
Yeah, that Howard Dean. It seems the WSJ has given him a forum to vent his views on the vastness that is the national economy. What results is a voluminous kvetching against George and all that Big Dub's economic policies promote (like economic growth).
From 'We Can Do Better', by Dr. Howard Dean, Friday, August 22, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT www.opinionjournal.com
This is my first attempt at a Fisking.
| The economy is going through tough times. The average American family is in trouble. The economy has been losing good jobs, and the benefits that went with them, at an astonishing rate. |
Those jobs must be coming from the automotive sector, which explains why I've seen so many temporary registration tags on cars lately (read "new purchases").
| It doesn't have to be this way. Our economy has proved its resilience time and again. The skills and productivity of the American worker are the envy of the world. When we have had clear direction and effective leadership, we have created millions of jobs, raised the incomes of all Americans and diminished the gap between rich and poor. |
Of course, unlike now, most presidents with "clear direction and effective leadership" haven't had to deal with a terrorist threat that infects the entire central Asian area. Fortunately, Bush has the direction, leadership, and means to deal with said terrorism and a recovering economy. A rare combination, one we shouldn't be so eager to remove from office.
| But over the past two and a half years, the number of unemployed Americans has gone from under 6 million to over 9 million. Worse, the number of long-term unemployed--those who have been looking for a job for more than 6 months--has tripled to almost two million workers. These numbers are part of a larger story. The promise of America has been based on the understanding that hard work would pay off in a better job and a brighter future for the next generation. We need to restore that promise. Millions are unemployed, and millions more are underemployed in dead-end jobs. Wages are stagnant. Job security is disappearing. |
Of course, silly me, I thought that hard work paid off now and in the future. But it is awfully convenient of the doc to ignore any statistics about created jobs.
Were the unemployed newly unemployed? How many unemployed have found a new job in the past two and a half years? How many couldn't hold down a job to save their lazy butts no matter what you did? How many became free-lancers or self-employed?
| One out of four U.S. workers is free-lancing, employed in a temporary job, self-employed or working part-time. Studies show that workers who lose manufacturing jobs take an average 13% pay cut in their next employment. |
You say "free-lancing" and "self-employed" as if it was a slur. Many temp/part-time jobs are in restaurants. Are you mocking the backbone of our economy, the very people you appeal to every time I see you on TV (which always seems to be in a restaurant)? Yeah, that's smart: "Vote for me, I make fun of you in high-brow newspaper opinions!"
| When companies cut back on health-care benefits and guaranteed pensions, workers are hit hard. Studies by scholars, including Karen Kornbluh of the New America Foundation, show that families compensate by running harder, and that stress can become unbearable. There are elderly parents to care for, children to educate, and the need to save for a secure retirement. Married couples now work 10 weeks longer each year than they did in 1968, and live with an accumulation of debt that threatens financial disaster. |
Could it possibly be, maybe, perhaps, that the reason they work more and have to spend more and owe more is because they pay more in taxes now than in 1968?
Hmmm, Dr. "I love the great spending society" Dean?
| As Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi point out in their forthcoming book "The Two Income Trap," today's two-income families earn 75% more money than their single-income counterparts did a generation ago, but they actually have less money to spend. For many, personal bankruptcies have become the rule rather than the exception. This year more children will live through their parents' bankruptcy than through their parents' divorce. |
Yet in a few paragraphs you are going to suggest increasing the taxes on such families as a way to improve their lot in life. Did your doctorate come with a new math certification, doc? because 10% + 10% is not less than 10%, its 20%.
| In about 500 days, the next president will take office. |
Not if I have any say in the matter. If things go as I hope, it won't happen for a little less than 2000 days.
| There will be an inaugural address, full of talk of promises and hopes. Let us hope the next inaugural speech holds up better in the perspective of history than the last one. |
Apparently Dean thinks perspective can be gained from a mere two and a half years of time. He must have been asleep in history class. In 1935 Hitler was looking pretty good, having "revived" the German economy. What we didn't know was that he had done it with low-interest loans from the U.S. and was planning on starting war in a few years, in addition to planning a genocide that still repulses the civilized world.
But Bush's speech
was not that bad. It spoke of civility and destiny. It spoke of courage. And it was eerily prescient:
We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors.
The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom. We will defend our allies and our interests. We will show purpose without arrogance. We will meet aggression and bad faith with resolve and strength. And to all nations, we will speak for the values that gave our nation birth.
I would rather have a man who speaks those words than a man who thinks the speech has not held up to the "perspective" of history.
| Promising a "compassionate" administration, President Bush pledged to "recover the momentum of our economy," "reward the effort and enterprise of working Americans" and confront economic problems now, "instead of passing them on to future generations." Instead, he's offered tax cuts that don't address our needs, and saddled our children with debt for generations to come. On this president's watch, the federal debt has grown by over $1 trillion. That's the rough equivalent of putting $3,500 on the charge card of every American. |
I am a "working American" and my "effort and enterprise" were rewarded with tax cuts. Now (or rather, then). The tax cuts addressed my needs and they did not saddle my children with debt.
Terrorists did that.
When? Back in September of 2001, when they demonstrated the need for a strong military and intelligence service. Are you implying that we should not have increased military capacity to deal with terrorism? I would rather increase spending for a military that defends me from external threats (something I can't do effectively) than increase spending for a government health care system that takes care of my health (something I can do rather effectively).
| How did our nation come to this place? The answer is simple--the economic policies of this administration are aimed at ideological goals, not help for the average American. |
But they helped me. Are you saying I am not an average American? Are you, when you say you will help the average American, saying you won't help me? Besides, what's the problem with advancing Bush's ideology, since it benefits Americans?
| We can do better. As president, my economic policies will be focused and clear. I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation's infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it. |
First, lets ignore history and assume revenues increase with taxes. You are saying you will "put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it", by which I can only assume you mean Congress. That means you are only too willing to increase spending by an already bloated government. I cannot support that. Put the shovel down, doc. You're only making me want to vote against you.
| The task of meeting the needs of American families begins with health care. |
Wrong. The task of meeting the needs of American families begins with the head of the household, not with a government program designed to appease a block of democratic donators.
| My plan will not only insure millions of Americans who are without adequate care today, it will reduce costs for small business, states and communities--freeing up funds that can be used to grow businesses and meet other national and local priorities. |
Will it have an opt-out policy for those who do not wish to participate and want to fund their own health insurance programs independent of the government? If not, I cannot support it. People should be allowed to pick the best option, not be forced to pay for one they do not want.
| 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. |
Let me repeat, just to be clear: I DO NOT WANT YOU TO INCREASE SPENDING OR TAXES. Cut both, that way you can force government to live within its means. When I try and live beyond my means, my credit card debt slavery goes up. I don't want you to increase the debt of this nation. Period.
| 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. |
Actually, those are the only two ways you can pay income taxes. Besides, you want to increase taxes, and although you can do this by simplifying the tax code, I beg you not to. How about simplifying things: the government can have 10% (or preferably, less) of everything I make, and the same amount of everything everyone else makes, etc. etc. etc. That way, you both simplify things and reduce the burden on everyone else. Heck, you will probably see a net gain in tax income, then you won't have to raise taxes. Did that thought ever cross your mind, doc?
| 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. |
Again he claims I'm not average because I got a tax cut.
I hear Steve Forbes wants to be Secretary of the Treasury ...
| 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. |
So you plan to balance the budget by raising taxes and increasing spending? That means you'll be cutting income and increasing outgo. You have it precisely backwards.
| 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. |
And you think that a state whose economy depends on bed & breakfasts next to mom-&-pop restaurants populated by people who voted for you is similar to the economy of the nation? Sorry, doc, its a bit more complex than that. Your biggest challenge, should you get that far, will be to deal with the massive, self-perpetuating bureaucracy.
| 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. |
Although I've been demoted from Average American, I've been promoted to Special Interest. Yay! Apparently, cutting taxes the first year in office is not swift enough action for the doc. He plans to tax and spend his way in the Oval Office. Someone (Walter Mondale) should send this guy a memo: don't run on an I'm-increasing-taxes-and-you'll-like-it platform, it doesn't get you anywhere.
Add A New Comment
