Governor Dean Unveils Economic Plan :
The main points of the Dean economic program consists of:
1. JOB CREATION: A short-term stimulus to create 1 million new jobs through a $100 billion Fund to Restore America that will help states and local governments create jobs in health, education, and homeland security, as well as build or restore schools, roads and other infrastructure.
So what is the purpose of this fund? Is it like the WPA of years past? If so, how will that wash with labor unions, who would want their members to have first crack at any employment? Will the call to insist that these new employees be protected by unions be repeated, as was with the airport security (and we've seen how well that has worked lately!)? Can anyone tell me how government 'creates' jobs, at all, let alone in targeted fields?
2. FISCAL DISCIPLINE: Repeal all the president's tax cuts, pay for new programs without increasing the deficit, and a pledge to balance the budget.
Not even the leading Democrats in Congress agree with repealing all of the Bush tax cuts. Lets assume the country is basically 40% Democrat, 40% Republican, and 20% Undecided. Are you betting that only the Republican voters are enjoying paying *less* taxes?? Tell me, Gov. Dean, are you sure you're not on Sen. Clinton's 2008 Campain already??
You pledge to pay for new programs without increasing the deficit: can't that be done by cutting spending (something Republicans used to do, something they used to promise to do, but not for some time, sadly)??
3. HELP FOR SMALL BUSINESS: A new Small Business Capital Corporation to expand the secondary market for small business loans and make capital for these job creators available more easily and at a lower cost.
Is this a new Small Business agency, or an overhaul of the SBA? Please, some clarity would be nice.
4. TAX FAIRNESS: An aggressive effort to clean up the tax code, end corporate welfare, close tax loopholes, enhance enforcement against tax cheats and to shift the burden of taxation back toward corporations giving fairer treatment to individual taxpayers.
Here we have some agreement: enforceing the laws against tax cheats. However I do recall some Congressional hearings where many in Congress chastised the IRS; can you make this proposal work with them?
Ending corporate welfare is a nice battle cry. However, how many of these corporations wouldn't think twice to move out of the US to nation's that offer some tax considerations?
Shifting the burden to Corporations is also a red herring: if the Corps pay more, that will be reflected in their stock dividens (sharehodlers who, oddly enough, are also voters). Further, the Corps will pass their added expenses on to their customers (again, voters). So what to you gain with this idea?
5. TAX SIMPLIFICATION: A commitment to tax simplification so that at least half of American taxpayers will no longer have to fill out forms.
Another area we can agree. Tell me, Gov. Dean, do you recall the criticism levied against Sen. Robert Dole when he propsoed the same idea during his failed 1996 presidential run? Why is your idea any different?
6. A BETTER DEAL FOR WORKING FAMILIES: Addressing working families' anxieties about making ends meet with a higher minimum wage, universal health care, greater assistance with early education and care and college for their kids and a secure retirement.
This one is a hoot. Please tell me: outside of a relatively few American's who've inheritied their abundent wealth, can you please point to an American family that isn't 'working'? Even Bill Gates' works for his money, so his family would easily be called a 'working family'.
Hiking minimum wage is another red herring. Doing so is more symbollic than anything else. For starters, no one ever takes a job with the expectation of never rising above minimum wage. Any employee worth his or her salt would either get an increase after proving their worth or move on to another job that will recognize their worth. Sure, there are temporary or short-term jobs, but these are far from the norm. If an employer can afford to pay 2 workers less than minimum wage, but only one worker at minimum wage, which scenario do you think is more worthwhile? I say the former, but you'd probably disagree.
(Isn't it ironic that President Clinton was quoted in Time Magazine (Feb. 6, 1995) as saying
"Hiking the minimum wage is the wrong way to raise the incomes of low-wage earners." ? Maybe he realized what I've said is true.)
Universal health is a sure thing! Why just ask then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. The American people let her know they disliked government control of 1/7th of the US economy. Hasn't Gov. Dean learned from the past?
Greater assistance for early education?? There are public schools and head-start already! Why don't the American people drop their kids off at a State run facility right after birth and be done with them? How much control do you want the government to have over our children?
College? Has anyone ever pointed out that not *everyone* is college material? And for those that are, aren't there public colleges in every state already?? Or are you promising a Harvard education for every person??
Secure retirement: we already have a Ponzi scheme called "Social Security"; you have spoken against allowing people to voluntarily invest a mere 2% of their funds privately. What, then, do you bring to the table?
Lots of nice platitudes in this economic plan. If Gov. Dean is the winner of the Primaries, and he sticks with plans like this, I think it's easy to forecast Sen. Clinton's 2008 campaign.
Sphere: Related Content
♦
DiggIt! ♦
Add to del.icio.us ♦
Add to Technorati Faves ♦
Facebook