Forget about McGovern - is Dean the 'new Mondale'?

With the nation facing huge deficits, Mondale told the voters that a raise in taxes was inevitable. "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I," he said. "He won't tell you, I just did." It was a disastrous strategy. Reagan promised prosperity, a strong defense, and balanced budgets without raising taxes. On election day, he lost forty-nine states and carried only MN and DC. Assessing the results, Mondale commented, "Reagan was promising them 'morning in America,' and I was promising a root canal."
http://ontheissues.org/Economic/Walter_Mondale_Tax_Reform.htm



According to almost all independent observers, Mondale clearly won the first debate. Reagan made many mistakes during the debate: he claimed responsibility for creating laws during his time as California's Governor, which were in fact his Democratic predecessor's legacy; he claimed that a large portion of his military budget was for "food and wardrobe"; and he lost himself many times during his speeches. The debate ended with Reagan's closing statement, which, before it began, Reagan declared "I'm all confused now" (Slansky 1989: 112). Reagan's closing statement ends:

MODERATOR: Mr. President, I'm obliged to cut you off there under the
rules of the debate. I'm sorry.
REAGAN: All right, I was just going to -
MODERATOR: Perhaps I should point out that the rules under which I
did that were agreed upon by the two campaigns.
REAGAN: I know, yes (Blume 1985: 332).


However, he failed to transform victory in the debate, which in the past would have been quite a significant achievement, into a tangible boost.

<snip>
This runs to the heart of Mondale's campaign. His analysis of Reagan's success was completely wrong. Mondale knew that opinion polls showed that Americans disagreed with Reagan's policies when presented with them directly (Croteau and Hoynes 1994). Thus, he decided to base his campaign around these issues. What he utterly failed to realize is that in spite of the rejection of Reagan's policies, Americans overwhelmingly approved of Reagan the President.
http://it.stlawu.edu/~quack/seminar/mondale_campaign.htm

Now we have some candidates who are again proposing to run for President on a platform that tells the American middle-class: "I will raise your taxes". Is this really the message we want to run on at time when the stakes are so high, and the likely margin of victory in the Electoral College so narrow? I am optimistic that we can take the White House but that optimism is tempered by the political reality that it probably will be a very close election. And one that we can not afford to lose.

Mondale lost in a landslide, winning only his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

Dean is something of a DLC liberal...but a former Washington insider?? And Dean is hardly what I would call a Humphrey Democrat.

But then again, I still believe if Mondale had run in 1988 rather than in 1984..he would of won. Mondale lost very simply because of the healthy economy. You are right about one thing..it is wrong to assume Mondale lost because of his liberal message. Mondale won around the same percentage of the vote against Reagan that Dole won running against Clinton. What Dole had in his favor that Mondale didn't have included Ross Perot to draw away votes from the popular incumbent..and a base more broadly scattered throughout many small, rural states.

Dukakis fours years later, unwisely ignored the advice of Sasso to provide voters with the specifics which they typically wanted to hear from Democrats, and instead ran on general themes like integrity and competence. After Bush had savaged Dukakis's campaign with negative ads, Dukakis finally brought Sasso back on the campaign. But by then it was already too late, Mike's lead in the polls had become a gap..and all Sasso could do was run ads to defend against the lies that Atwater was effectively spreading.

But if it had not been for Sasso's work...I would be willing to bet that Dukakis would of lost four additional states!

He was a terrible speaker and terrible campaigner. He dispatched Hart in the primaries and it was all downhill from there. I don't know what else to say.

Duke did turn it around at the end. That's true- he closed it down in the end to a 54-46 precent loss. he had been trailing by more in the final 2 to 3 weeks.

others call it the midwestern style that we see from candidates like Gephardt, Mondale, or McGovern...maybe it's just a midwestern thang. :evilfrown:

He did use "Where's the beef" against Hart very very effectively.

He just couldn't neutralize Reagan's optimism.
People just ate "morning in america" up.

Dean is like which unelectable loser?

Sadly, the GOP thought the same thing...

Statement of RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie on Howard "Fritz" Dean

WASHINGTON - Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie released the following statement today:

"Today Governor Howard "Fritz" Dean unveiled an old idea. Twenty years ago, a politician promised American families, workers and small businesses a massive tax increase. Today Howard Dean restored that dream as a prescription for economic growth. It was bad policy for America then, and it is bad policy for job creation now."


http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/Releases/Oct03/release031016.htm

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

KERRY’S “REGIME CHANGE” DOUBLE WHOPPER WITH SWISS CHEESE



http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research090203.htm


Why pay attention to the RNC? Is the above link as valid as yours? Or is this one unfair and yours is right on target? You do this board a disservice by echoing RW talking points.

but they've become extinct...:cry:

and then he lost the general election.

Dean seems more a Truman.

IMOP

Truman did campaign against Congress, but he very clearly was campaign against the Republican congress, in contrast to Dean's scorched earth, throw-out-the-Democrats-and-Republicans approach.

But it was Mondale's promise to raise taxes that was the kiss of death for him.

And you just watch: the DNC will see to it that Kerry is the nominee...

Howard Dean is like.....




Howard Dean!

and adding so thoughtfully to the debate.

Do you mean the attempt by people who oppose the governor to try and paint him into a persona that conveys a sense of defeatism....you accept the premise without any evidence to back it up besides they both said raise taxes?

Very scientific of you...perhaps others are more inclined to live in the here and now and not worry about comparing our current crop of candidates, which is the best in years, to past failures simply to try and scare democrats into not supporting someone through spin and scare-mongoring....

That is the the subject of debate here.

Will the politically-uninvolved, gets-information-from-TV-news middle class swing voter go to Bush, with his Reaganesque Morning-in-America bullshit promises, or to Dean with his Mondale-like root-canal-for-your-own-good promises?

let promise to reduce taxes...hey, here's an even better idea, let's do everything the repugs do, cause they're winning...right, then we'll win too....

Go Joe Lieberman!!!!!

Or are you only able to shout slogans?

Dean and Gephardt propose one policy, which is to repeal the entire tax cut, Kerry and Edwards propose repealing the tax cut for the wealthy, and keeping the middle-class elements like the 10% bracket, the repeal of the marriage penalty, and the expanded child credit.

That's a policy difference, and it also will play differently politically in the general election.

Are you up to the task of discussing those differences?

I've got better things to do with my time than spend hours posting on DU trying to convince people who have already made up their minds that my candidate's the right one...

Frankly, I go by the old adage that opinions are like assholes...everyone's got one....speculating on Dean's performance in the general election because he supports repealing Bush's tax cuts is nothing more than this....

You have engaged in this debate but have produced no evidence other than your own interpretation of events....and I'm supposed to engage this type of discourse?

OK, i'll play...

1) Democrats have won many elections building the social welfare system that is currently under attack by this administration....so history is on our side on this issue....

2) Saying that Dean is authorizing a tax increase is a stupid argument and needs to be expressed as such....Dean is offering healthcare, spending on homeland security, investment in small businesses, education, etc....things that the American people like and have seen taken away by the current administration's policies....

3) Dean is a fiscal conservative and will not spend more money than is coming in......

4) The tax cuts that Bush has given the public has in fact caused the burden to be shifted to the states, where property taxes and other types of taxes have been raised...thereby cancelling out any possible benefits that $200 dollars gave them....just tonight, the news reported that college tuitions in state universities has gone up 14%....

5) the tax code Dean want's to go back to did pretty good under the Clinton administration...and should you suggest that the economy sucks too much to do it...things weren't going that great in 1993 when the taxes were raised.....

so how's that...did I meet you expectation for debate on this issue?

Perhaps why the Dean supporters are so snippy is that we constantly have to read crap like this...and don't worry, someone will raise this again in two weeks, it'll get into the rotation with the Dean is too short, Dean is too liberal, Dean is too conservative, Dean is hiding his records, Dean is being supported by the repugs, Dean is a flip flopper, Dean is fill in the blank threads that come back over and over again...and we have gotten tired of refuting the same old nonsense over and over again because supporters of other candidates can't find anything to say about their candidates that can overcome the lead Dean has...and desperation is setting in....

Again, I will support any Dem candidate that wins the nomination, I am currently sending $20 a month to the DNC for whomever the future nominee will be...and I really don't care if that pleases anyone or not....

But from time to time I enter this mastabatory "I hate candidate x" threads and give my two cents in the hopes that everyone will take a deep breath...figure out that noone's paying attention to them and we can all move on....

here endith the lesson.....

:evilgrin:

to think their taxes went up?


1) Democrats have won many elections building the social welfare system that is currently under attack by this administration....so history is on our side on this issue....

Well, history isn't on Dean's side... the last Democrat who made this promise while running for President is Mondale, as was noted in the first post. And Democrats certainly have won many elections championing progressive taxation, which is the opposite of what Dean is proposing.

2) Saying that Dean is authorizing a tax increase is a stupid argument and needs to be expressed as such....Dean is offering healthcare, spending on homeland security, investment in small businesses, education, etc....things that the American people like and have seen taken away by the current administration's policies....

I just don't see how some politician is going to convince people that even though they are paying more in taxes, it's not a tax increase. And telling them they are stupid, I don't think is going to be very persuasive.

3) Dean is a fiscal conservative and will not spend more money than is coming in......

I'm positive that Dean has made no such pledge.

4) The tax cuts that Bush has given the public has in fact caused the burden to be shifted to the states, where property taxes and other types of taxes have been raised...thereby cancelling out any possible benefits that $200 dollars gave them....just tonight, the news reported that college tuitions in state universities has gone up 14%....

Is Dean promising to lower those taxes and fees? Is he promising that some other politician is going to?

5) the tax code Dean want's to go back to did pretty good under the Clinton administration...and should you suggest that the economy sucks too much to do it...things weren't going that great in 1993 when the taxes were raised.....

Certainly balancing the federal budget would be easier with the $686 Billion that Dean plans on raising with his middle-class tax increase.
But I believe we can do better.

that's what I said huh? I certainly called people stupid...not the argument right?

I also find it interesting that you choose to use the right wing talking points that what Dean proposes is a tax increase on the middle class...

oh...what a surprise...a Kerry supporter....

I'll give you points for orginality....this is better than the tired old nonsense that's been coming out of the campaign for the last three months, it's at least original....but I guess the "folks" over at www.johnkerry.com are all about quality..not quantity...

gotta go now...have to write my ten letters to Iowa primary voters tonight so that I can start on my NH voters letters....

than this weekend it's out canvasing the central Michigan dem hotspots so we can drive up that Dean poll percentage another ten points....

But I make you this promise....if Kerry gets the nod, i'll be writing letters and canvusing for him as well for the general election...

No matter how Dean spins it. But who knows, maybe Dean can convince people that although their taxes go up, it's not an increase. After all, Reagan convinced a lot of people that if the government lowered taxes, it would take in more money. Maybe the same people who believed that will vote for Dean. Unless they've learned their lesson.

I still love ya anyway....

:evilgrin:

agree to disagree....look forward to working together in the general election....

I don't know if Dean can overcome that hurdle. As much as I believe the last two tax packages need to be repealed, it is too easy to declare that a tax increase. Too easy to say that that is taking food off the tables of Americans who can barely make ends meet. It is easily spun that Dean is unsympathetic to the plight of the little guy in favor of fiscal responsibility.

Kerry's position is stronger with the voters, weaker in the long run, in my opinion.

you don't have an X on Edwards. Hasn't only been elected once to the Senate?

Edwards fails one of my key criteria to be a President.

Which criteria does Dean not meet? Or is that part of the thought experiment? I read through them, but couldn't figure out which one(s).

Because of my bias towards Dean, he starts in the hole. For one of the other candidates who meet my core criteria, all that needs to be done is convince me that he deserves my energy and vote. Dean has a higher hurdle. I need to be convinced that the negativity directed towards Dean here is a) localized to here, b) a direct reaction to his front runner status, c) able to be washed away if he becomes the nominee. Will he be able to not only get the anti-Dean crowd to vote for him but also campaign for him?

Can he do that by saying 'The other candidates, he says witheringly, offer nothing more than "Bush-Lite".' Reference Link - The Scotsman Of course that is what the reporter wrote and is not a direct quote, only a quick and fast summary of Dean's tack to run as a Washington outsider.

Galbraith said "Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."

Bush's tax cuts are disastrous.

The liberal Washington-based Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the federal government would take in an additional $2.5 trillion from 2005 to 2012 if all the Bush tax cuts were rolled back. The middle-class provisions (the child-care credit, the new 10% tax bracket and the elimination of the marriage penalty) account for about $686 billion of that total. So, in essence, the Democratic presidential candidates are squabbling over this $686 billion, or 27% of the overall Bush tax cuts.
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20031017/5599034s.htm

The challenge of balancing the federal budget without that $686 billion is unpalatable. But it is a challenge we can meet. And we must weigh that against whose pocket it comes out of. Let's not forget either that once we are no longer practicing the voodoo economics of trickle-down, and the economy begins to turn around, tax receipts will rise in consequence.

That's one of my biggest beefs with Dean. That position may get him the nomination but it will get him the same amount of electoral votes as Mondale. We can't have that because we want Bush out of there!

Come on Dean, can you flip flop on this as well? :-) We need a democrat in the White House in 2005!

If he gets the nomination it will be in spite of that. It is funny how many people opposed the cut, but the minute you try to undo it, it becomes personal. People will cry out how if it weren't for that extra dollar in their paychecks they will starve or something.

Dean does support a middle class tax cut, he just wants to negotiate it separately. It may be a poison pill for his campaign though because that is a compound thought and the only thing his opposition will say is 'he wants to raise your taxes' and forget to mention 'and give tax breaks to those who deserve it, not Bush's elite.'

For the discussion of the politics of repealing all the tax cuts, this might be of interest:

http://econ4dean.typepad.com/econ4dean/2003/10/repeal_all_the_.html

So what is your take on it?

Did you expect that John Kerry would be trailing Howard Dean in both Iowa and New Hampshire a year ago?

Did you expect that John Kerry's Iraq policies would drop him from favored front-runner to 3rd place in Iowa?

Did any prognosticators expect Howard Dean to be the frontrunner at this point in the campaign?

Ronald Reagan was tarred as a new Goldwater and easily won two national elections.

Bill Clinton was considered out of the race by many heading into the Iowa caucuses and easily won two national elections.

Walter Mondale is the only national candidate in recent history to propose raising taxes and he lost badly. Are you really going to judge the rest of history on one case? That would not hold up in any form of legitimate research. Walter Mondale had other serious handicaps as a candidate - one was the perception of staunch liberal - like John Kerry, for one.

Compare Dean to Mondale, Truman, McGovern, Clinton - I don't care. He is simply Howard Dean who speaks to me and many many others as a strong candidate to defeat Bush.

Your supposition that Mondale stating we should raise taxes and Howard Dean's stating we should repeal a very unpopular tax increase (most polls indicate the majority agree with him if it results in universal healthcare) are really the same is not supported by any legitimate form of research. One shakily similar case does not support a strong conclusion.

Going back to my campaigning - Dean's state campaign leader in Illinois is visiting here in Bloomington tomorrow and Champaign the next day. Where are the other campaigns???

I can give you my simplified perspective of it all.

The Bush tax cuts are kind of like Kerry's campaign this last quarter where he spent 7 million dollars and only took in 4 million dollars. Under the Clinton tax plan it would have been the reverse. Under Bush, spending has gone way up while revenue has been cut. On top of the Bush debt and additional expenses (wars, homeland security, etc.) most all the candidates want to add new programs such as healthcare which adds an additional expense. Dean and Gephardt want to eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts and go back to what we had under the last Democratic president. Some, such as Edwards and Kerry, want to leave in some of the tax cuts to the middle class. Because of the debt and expenses what this means is that the government will spend like a $1000 in order to give someone a $300 tax cut. While this doesn't make economic sense it could win political points, although there could be those that see this as an affirmation that the Bush tax cuts were partially correct and so some of those points would go to him as well in the public perception. Both Dean and Kerry will be slammed by the GOP about raising taxes from their records. From a negotiating with Congress standpoint, Dean would begin with a stronger bargaining position since the president won't get all he asks for anyway. If you begin with the position of keeping part of the Bush tax cuts then you could have a situation of well, we'll keep these if we can also keep these others which of course will leave less money for the new programs. It would be better to get rid of all the Bush tax cuts and then do some real tax reform rather than work with some cobbled up Bush tax plan, imo. People want the programs but they don't want the taxes to pay for them, and so it'll be a challenge for the candidate to sell to the public their programs and show that they are really going to benefit.

That this is just a negotiating position? Do you really think that?

I'm a fan of Raum Emmanual and the quoted part from his Wall Street Journal piece meshes well with my viewpoint. We need to stop thinking of taxes as being raised or lowered. We need to start talking about reform.

That can't happen if half of our party is going to break rank and say reforming the tax law is actually raising people's taxes. I really like the idea of a place where people can punch in their numbers and see what kind of a 'break' they are actually getting after state and local tax increases were put in place to cover federal shortfalls.

Ahh, there's the rub, though. There is no guarantee that after all of Bush's tax cuts are repealed that the state's and local taxes will fall.

in taxes, they generally consider that 'a raise in taxes', and if they pay less, they generally consider that 'a cut in taxes'.

It's similar to the debate over the Medicare rhetoric. The Republicans tried to say they didn't really want to 'cut Medicare' -- just to 'limit it's growth rate'. But we Democrats rightly pointed out that what that meant was that Medicare was going to have less money -- a 'cut'. We won that argument because we were right, and we didn't have to try to redefine words to make our arguments.

And as far as the local/state taxes argument goes, it makes some classroom sense as a theory. But state and local tax policies have their own separate political dynamic. Many states like my own have decades-old arguments over property taxes, sales taxes, and so on. Those things move on their own arc. We certainly didn't have a rise in local or state taxes because of the federal tax cut. So I don't see how this is going to play in places where it just isn't so.

States have been raising taxes and cutting services left and right. This has been almost entirely due to the feds.

that a lot of people don't see.

In Montana, I have a friend who is on public assistance. The state had the option of cutting the amount of money each person enrolled got or kicking a bunch of people off. They humanely opted for the former, though it meant her having to find different housing.

Now, if I was still in Montana and didn't know her, I wouldn't have noticed any significant change. Would I really know if there were two less policeman on duty in my precinct or not? So many things are occurring outside of our view.

then its services are cut - pretty soon the thread of your argument gets more and more tenuous.

Yes, the Montana state government is in perpetual budget crisis, and that's thanks to the Republican's who run it. That's one of the reasons we are going to take back our state legislature this year. Now supposedly Dean is going to be making the argument that it's all Bush's fault? That's not going to make any sense to anyone who's been reading the papers all this time that the Republicans have been running the state into the ground without any help from the Feds. As I said, state and local taxes have their own political dynamic that this argument seems to be ignoring. Simple arguments might make some sense politically but not necessarily simplistic ones. And this argument that local and state taxes went up because of the Bush tax cut is not only overly simplistic, it's simply not true in enough places to undercut the whole argument.

So you would support John Kerry keeping tax cuts simply to win the election at the expense of the services disappearing?

that the tax cuts resulted in some one-to-one cut in services or raise in taxes. And the other false assumption that if local or state taxes have gone up that they will automatically go down if Dean raises federal taxes on the middle-class.

Please reply to 41 so we aren't two people trying to have two conversations.

We have a serious budget deficit here in Illinois - largely created when the national economy fell apart.

Our governor pledged to not raise taxes.

Consequently, the 12 regional public library systems (major support structure for public libraries) lost over 10% of their funding and are cutting personal and support programs left and right.

Regional support offices for education have faced very serious cuts and are cutting personnel and programs left and right.

I was at one of our state parks this weekend and there was a section closed "due to staff shortages created by budget cuts"

Some parks are closed entirely

Our state university (about 20,000 students) seriously considered cutting out any summer classes due to state budget cuts and commented the cuts have hit "muscle"...they are trying to keep them from hitting bone.

The people here are in the mood to consider raising taxes if it means services on both a state and national level.

In many states they now know what a pledge to "not raise taxes" means...it means CUTS!

Or just to raise federal taxes?

Illinois is suffering from tax increases (property taxes) and service cuts. There is another thread running talking about how colleges have to raise tuition. This can be tied to a smaller amount of federal funds going to colleges. You have to look at the whole package.

I understand it is complex. In fact it is that complexity that I am saying undercuts Dean's argument. It's not a simple matter and anyone who has been paying property taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes for a decade or two and has been voting on these issues at the state and local level realizes that it just isn't true that these taxes are going to easily go back down. So whether they got a local tax increase or not -- and I think the majority of people in this country did not -- a raise in Federal taxes is just that.

As a generic question, I fully agree this is an obstacle the Dean campaign will have to overcome. It is a large one and they will have to be creative.

I fully agree with the 100% repeal, I just don't know if it is politically expedient.

Sin taxes continue to go up...a raise in taxes.

And we've had failed attempts at making up the shortfalls with more lottery.

Now we have what I can only describe as a tax on non-profits -- any organization that receives a grant in Illinois - either state money or state-administered federal money - has 5% taken off the top for "administrative expenses" and that is returned to the state.

It's hard to get absolutely furious about that however when we're facing so many Draconian cuts everywhere else to deal with the budget hole we have.

Polls have shown fairly strong support here for raising taxes if it's clear that it will go to the budget problem.

'vote for me, and cigarette taxes will go down'?

If that's the only tax that went up that affects the middle class, it's the only one that could be lowered to offset the higher Federal taxes middle-class taxpayers would be paying under Dean's plan.

And that reveals the crucial flaw in this argument: even if local or state taxes did go up, what's to say they are going to go down if Dean repeals the whole tax cut. Do you believe your local water district for example, that increased its mill levy on your property taxes is going to rescind it? Will the state sales tax in whatever state be decreased? Will cigarette taxes in Illinois be lowered? Those are separate political battles.

The local taxes probably won't go down right quick, but the service cuts will be eliminated. I'm in Chicago and there are more people on the streets now. Why? Because there are less federal funds available for the programs that provided community outreach to the homeless.

We have to understand that the pennies we saved are doing real damage to our communities.

I was answering your question about where taxes are going up....

Even though I support Dean...I wasn't talking about his campaign or even thinking about it when I was simply trying to report facts of what is happening here.

Thanks for making so many ridiculous assumptions

tax plans. Is any mention of Dean's name considered an attack by you? Do you want to respond to the point I made in post 41 or not?

LumX said : "I really like the idea of a place where people can punch in their numbers and see what kind of a 'break' they are actually getting after state and local tax increases were put in place to cover federal shortfalls."

and what I'm pointing out is that when a lot of people do punch in their numbers, it turns out Dean will raise their taxes. You said in Illinois, cigarette taxes went up, so how else could taxes go back down other than to have the cigarette tax lowered?

And assumed stupidity on my part when I was answering your question.

And by the way, if you had waited a few minutes, I did respond.

No license fee increases? No tuition increases? Damn! I'm moving to Illinois.

To answer your question on levies that already exist: they have a specific duration, after which they must be renewed by vote. When the levy is up for renewal, the agency will 1) not need to submit for renewal or 2) lose the vote for renewal because people know they're adequately funded again.

taxing authorities in the US. There are thousands, maybe millions of different taxing authorities. I don't know what specific case you are talking about but there is no blanket rule such as you are describing.

"tax cuts" Your mileage may differ.

Yes, these are separate political battles.

However, I do believe that as things go from bad to worse...as is supported in polls...people will support raising taxes for things they believe should be real entitlements...health care for one example.

Republicans do want you and us to believe no one would ever vote for someone who wants to raise taxes. They've run on that for decades.

In this state, while he did not run saying "I will raise taxes", most voters believed Rod Blagojevich would be forced to raise taxes because the budget is such a mess and yet they voted for him instead of the Republican who created the mess. (See any parallels nationally?) He dug a hole for himself saying he wouldn't raise taxes (like the Republican candidate...hmmm, another parallel)...hence the tax against nonprofits, reduction in education personnel statewide, cuts in support for state parks, public libraries, on and on. I would hope a Democrat who wins election wouldn't create a similar hole for himself - if he does by insisting some tax cuts stay in place - I foresee losses in arts, education, libraries, health care, welfare, etc. funding.

but this supposedly happened in several other ones as well. Taxes were cut in Ohio at least three times during Clinton's eight years and they have gone up twice in the three years of Bush. Now maybe that was one gigantic coincidence. Maybe it has nothing at all to do with the fact that the economy under Clinton was good and that Clinton helped states out while Bush is doing the opposite. Maybe it is really death rays from Mars that caused this but I think not.

Fiscal policy will be more honest and responsible, so the economy will be more robust, so tax revenues will improve, so all these problems will be easier to deal with. Eventually. But first we have to get elected.

it is either 25 or 38. I think increasing fees amounts to a tax increase so I stand behind 38.

http://www.cbpp.org/2-6-03sfp.htm

The enacted increases and proposals in those 25 states include increases in income taxes, sales taxes, corporate taxes, and/or excise taxes, and they include both raising rates and broadening tax bases. The 25 governors proposing or enacting tax increases include Republicans and Democrats in all regions of the country. In addition to Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Wyoming, the states include Alaska, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and West Virginia.

The enacted and proposed tax increases in those states would raise close to $18 billion in the next fiscal year. That amount exceeds the revenue currently being raised by the total tax increases enacted in 2001 and 2002 combined.

If other types of revenue-increasing measures — such as fee increases, postponements of previously enacted tax increases, expansions of gambling, and others — are included, then at least 38 of the 48 governors’ budgets submitted so far rely on some revenue actions to help achieve balance in state budgets. States whose governors have proposed revenue-raising measures other than tax increases to help balance their budgets include Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.



end of quote

Please note that neither Alabama nor Washington State are on this list. Both were the scene of high profile tax battles where the tax cuts lost. Also Oregon attempted to increase taxes and was unable to. And also note that two states (I have no idea which ones) hadn't submitted budgets at the time this list was compiled.

So right away, as I was saying, you have a lot of people to whom this argument just doesn't apply. And even if your taxes have been raised on the state level, getting them lowered is not guaranteed.

which they say it isn't. What part of 2 states haven't submitted their budgets yet was unclear. And again another two states (WA and AL) weren't on this list despite well publicized tax battles that failed. I don't think there is even one state where education levies haven't increased.

let's see how the people feel after they have been screwed, shall we???

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Bush tax cuts are a serious issue -- the Republicans are attempting to bankrupt programs they don't like anyway they can. This case needs to be made, regardless if one disagrees on the nuances of Dean's fiscal policy or not.

I'm pretty sure everyone here is in agreement on that.

The question is whether to keep the middle-class tax breaks like the 10% bracket, the expanded child credit, and the repeal of the marriage penalty.

Most people, when they find out they are going to pay higher taxes, consider that a 'raise in taxes'. Even if some politician tells them it really is something different.

The question is whether to keep the middle-class tax breaks like the 10% bracket, the expanded child credit, and the repeal of the marriage penalty.

Most people, when they find out they are going to pay higher taxes, consider that a 'raise in taxes'. Even if some politician tells them it really is something different.

Dean would raise $686 Million with his middle-class tax hike. He says it needs it to balance the budget. And he certainly showed zeal in budget-balancing in Vermont. At least his consistent in his priorities. And John Kerry has been consistent in his priorities.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and taxes permanently slashed! But you cannot get golden eggs without a goose.

If we want taxes to go down and stay down for future generations, it must begin with spending cuts not taxcuts. And it can only become reality if we can again produce the same kind of budget surplusses that can be used to pay down the national debt over time. Taxes cannot be cut by merely reducing rates, it takes a reduction in longterm borrowing and in reckless military spending before this shall truly be accomplished.

The real question should be..is this just another political issue being used to score points in the primaries, or do candidates really want the tax burden to be less for future generations?

You must take the castor oil before you can take the sugar pill!

Candidate X is McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, etc. -- unless someone has a friggin DNA TEST it's just a self-defeating exercise for Democrats. Dean's not my favorite, Kerry is, so I just want to say as a Kerry supporter I HATE THIS!!!

love it or leave it...swallow or spit it, drink it or hose it, scoop it or eat it, wave it or burn it, prey it or carve it, cut it or grow it, yummy or sucky!!!:smoke:

An insurgency of young people made him a phenomena. Then when he lost the nomination, his supporters sat on their hands in the general and Nixon became the new president.

Okay people are we done with the comparisons? This is silly.

you're absolutely right, cindyw

Dean is the next president. Get used to it.

You're missing one very important key point: Mondale's campaign was not set against the backdrop of massive government deficits as far as the eyes can see.

For Dean's rollback strategy to really resonate, there must be an overwhelming recognition of the consequences of *'s disastrous fiscal irresponsibility. This is not likely to happen among the broad electorate. On the other hand, it would nevertheless underscore Dean as a fiscally responsible leader.

A simple and straightforward explanation of how the shifting state/federal tax burden effects our pocketbooks may help him shoot down criticism. At least among thinking independents. Others would be listening for "what's in it for me?, what do I get out of it?"

Realistically, in the short term, removing all the tax cuts (except upper bracket) right away will deprive the economy of its only stimulus and immediately lead to a recession in the first year of his first term. Therefore, he must phase in the withdrawal of middle class tax cuts over a few years. He must remind voters that putting America back on the path to fiscal responsibility will take time.

The difference between now and 1980 is that it is the Rrrepublicans who are leading the country into a malaise. Voters will turn to someone who will put the nation back on track, whatever that means in their individual minds. Independents are awakening to the fact they've been hoodwinked and will be seeking a straightforward, honest, and responsible leader. Dean's success so far is that he projects that image.

"Mondale's campaign was not set against the backdrop of massive government deficits as far as the eyes can see."

What? Better check your facts. You are wrong. First of all, Mondale ran in 1984, not 1980, and second of all, Reagan exploded the deficit in both of his terms: http://www.glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies/economics/econprinciples2001/pdfs/C10-06C-820487.pdf

You're right, I confused the '80 and '84 elections (I've tried to blot those years out of memory!). However I don't think the issue of long term structural deficits was very strong. "Supply-side economics" was still new, the recovery had picked up pace, and Ronnie had the "Evil Empire" on the run.

Fast forward: questions abound over *'s handling of the "axis of evil", intelligence, and the jobless recovery. I do agree with your premise that Mondale is a better comparison than McGovern. I still think most of my points still hold true, however.

Polls show these latest tax cuts were not all that popular with the electorate. We're in the middle of a long and costly occupation in Iraq. Noone has ever started a war and cut taxes at the same time. It smacks of irresponsibility, if not outright incompetence. I still think Dean can run on truth and responsibility and pull it off.

:wtf:

My main premise asserts that present circumstances may make the public less hostile to the concept of "raising" taxes by rolling them back to sustainable levels.

My main premise regards the public perception of the deficit problem. Your first response to my post did not show that deficits existed "as far as the eyes can see" in the 1984 campaign. Certainly Reagan blew the lid off spending; I was expecting you to either disprove that long term debt is an issue now or that it was also a hot topic 20 years ago.

My main premise had nothing to do with whether Reagan ran a deficit or if Mondale led the ticket. Therefore I hold that my conclusions still make sense.

and you aren't providing any evidence to back it up, just stating it as an axiom.

I can't speak for you; I don't know what you remember from the 1984 campaign. But I can tell you that deficit spending and the massive debt Reagan was piling up was very much an issue and it is the reason Mondale said: "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you, I just did."

And that is one of the big reasons Mondale lost in a landslide, winning only his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

except in the Orwellian sense. You prodded me to a little internet research to jog my memory. Circumstances were drastically different in 1984 which led to Mondale's defeat following his "root canal" promise:

* Economic recovery: following years of stagflation, output increased to 7.1% in 1982 Q2

* Inflation was reduced from a Carter high of 13.3% to 3.8%

* Prime rate fell from 21% to 13%

* Rrrrepublicans still had the reputation (however undeserved by this point) for fiscal conservativism, whereas they could still tag Dems as "tax and spend" liberals

* Reagan signed into law the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, which raised taxes by $44B (in today's $) thereby taking away the sting of criticism for his lavish spending, at least momentarily.

Therefore we had the opposite of what we may see next year with Dean. Rrrepublican tax cuts seeming to work wonders. Signing a tax increase in an election year to show fiscal responsibility. An opponent who was a Washington insider with strong ties to a failed administration. Tax protests, like in California were still a fresh memory. No notion of the impending doom which is the consequence of long term structural deficits. No costly occupation of a large foreign hostile land.

Recent polling indicates that most Americans were not enthused with the last round of tax cuts given the state of the economy. Tax cuts are a concern to 5% or less. Here's a few numbers I cherry picked for you:

Source: CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 28-Oct. 1, 2003. N=981 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Which do you think is better way to improve the national economy: cutting taxes or reducing the federal budget deficit?"
* Cut taxes: 28%
* Reduce deficit: 59%

Source: FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Sept. 23-24, 2003. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you think the 2003 tax cuts have helped your family's finances this year?"
* have helped: 30%
* have not helped: 61%

CONCLUSION: Dean is NOT Mondale. No landslide this time, no way.

SOURCES:

http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
http://www.4president.org/brochures/reaganbush84.pdf
http://www.ammi.org/cgi-bin/video/years.cgi?1984,,,,,

Tell people you are going to raise their taxes and they don't like it.

Mondale didn't lose because of economic reality, he lost because of political reality.

There's a subtle difference between raising taxes and restoring them to former levels in face of war and fiscal crisis.

Political reality.

The landscape may have changed. Following 911 it may be seen as doing one's part to sacrifice for the country; a shared sacrifice that will pay off with more jobs. People may be looking for honesty and responsibility in their leadership. Political reality may have shifted slightly in the past 20 years.

Its a bold and courageous thing to say something this unpopular. It makes one stand out. It garners the kind of respect that crosses partisan bounds and helps him in many areas other than tax policy.

Surely you don't disagree with that.

but you'd probably just disagree.

:shrug:

and Walter did not. He would have made a great President. I think those Reagan Democrats learned their lesson the first time round
* Wes Clark * case in point ;)

GO DEAN!

I am new and lean towards Dean but see nothing that he is like mondale. Mondale was lawyer, dean a doctor. One was a vp and the other a gov.

Dean has done a great job and he might be called what this web site is, democratunderground as he has used the internet or the underground to raise money. People in Mondale country took Jesse lightly and his internet team.

He seems to me a breath of fresh air. What the future of elections will be all about.