[BlackGriffen]

Press release (sound bites reproduced below)
PDF of full plan
PDF of presentation speech (FWIW)

Here's the sound bite version:

The Dean economic program consists of:

• 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.
  
• FISCAL DISCIPLINE: Repeal all the president�s tax cuts, pay for new programs without increasing the deficit, and a pledge to balance the budget.
  
• 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.
  
• 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.
  
• TAX SIMPLIFICATION: A commitment to tax simplification so that at least half of American taxpayers will no longer have to fill out forms.
  
• 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.

They all sound like good ideas, but then part of a politician's job is to be a good salesman.

So, what does the peanut gallery think? I'm going to glance over the pdf right now, myself, and rejoin the fight (I mean, conversation ) later.

Let her rip!

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

as supportive as I am in general to these goals, I was a little disappointed in the specifics or lack thereof on how to accomplish them.
Still, at least the goals, as stated, address a higher percentage of my own views than other candidates, so I might be in the odd position of supporting Dean unless or until something better comes along.

[BlackGriffen]

Agreed: long on ideals and goals, short on specifics.

What can you expect more than a year out from the election, though?

BG

[chris v]

I haven't read the whole thing, but agree in general with the "ideals and goals" such as they are. Beats the "assist multinational's rape and pillage" plan that the current administration seems to espouse.

CV

[BRussell]

We've argued about this before, BG, but I still don't like the repeal of all the tax cuts. Some of those tax cuts were Democratic proposals to begin with. I prefer Lieberman's also-just-announced tax plan, which increases taxes on the richest and decreases them even further on the lower income earners.

[zigzag]

Can anyone tell me when President Bush is going to unveil his economic plan?



Just kidding, just kidding . . .

[Uday's Carcass]

his plan is idiotic. higher taxes--regardless of whom you tax--hurts America.

and where is the part about lowering taxes on the working class? Not just the federal income tax, but the payroll taxes as well. The working class (the proletariat, for all you pinkos out there) takes it up the wazoo. Not that Dean cares. He's sitting pretty with a fat pension, a big pay check, and innumerable amenities and perks as a goverment lackey.

[The Mick]

The more time moves on, the more I can't stand the Democrats as much as I can't stand the Republicans. Most of this crap from Dean are more handouts at the federal level, and he wants to raise my taxes to pay for it? Screw you. If you have to raise taxes I want all of it - all of it earmarked for deficit relief. Let the states fund their own damn schools and road projects. It's not the federal government's responsibility to pay for all of these programs. Dammit, when can we see any viable Libertarian candidates?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Some of those tax cuts were Democratic proposals to begin with.

So tax cuts proposed by Democrats are inherently better than tax cuts proposed by Republicans?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
So tax cuts proposed by Democrats are inherently better than tax cuts proposed by Republicans?

I know that wasn't directed at me, but my opinion is that now is not the time for tax cuts, regardless of whether they come from democrats or republicans.
Instead, there needs to be a restraint on spending.
Especially now, as Bush has increased the deficit to record high levels, no one in their right minds should consider reducing intake of funds.

When I said there are a higher percentage of things in his pdf I approve of, I meant that, but by no means is it 100%. Further, like all politicians, its long on goals and short on specific methods to achieve them.

Unfortunately, Bush, like Reagan before him, has elevated the budget deficit so high that whoever replaces him will have a very tough uphill battle just to overcome the mismanagment, much less attempt to start any initiatives of his own.

In other words, Bush has effectively hamstrung anyone who succeeds him financially because he's running up the country's credit cards sooo badly it'll be hell to pay to keep up.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
So tax cuts proposed by Democrats are inherently better than tax cuts proposed by Republicans?

1. Dean describes all the tax cuts over the past two years as "the Bush tax cuts," which is really not accurate because some of them were advocated by Democrats.
2. Yes, I tend to agree with the tax cuts that are proposed by Democrats more than tax cuts proposed by Republicans; for example, compare the tax plans proposed by Lieberman vs. Bush.

[Millennium]

Before we can even think of starting new programs, we need to actually, you know, finish paying for the old ones.

And then. hopefully, reducing our spending back to sane levels. But no one wants that, because they'll all take a bite in the process. Face it; we -the government as well as a rather high proportion of the American people- ve been living above our means for way too long, and now it's time to correct that issue. It will hurt, but it's better than the alternative.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Before we can even think of starting new programs, we need to actually, you know, finish paying for the old ones.

And then. hopefully, reducing our spending back to sane levels. But no one wants that, because they'll all take a bite in the process. Face it; we -the government as well as a rather high proportion of the American people- ve been living above our means for way too long, and now it's time to correct that issue. It will hurt, but it's better than the alternative.

agreed. but as I point out, the way Bush is doing it, metaphorically he lives high on the american hog and then skips without picking up the check...the next guy to sit at the table has to do that. That's a bit unfair to the next guy, whoever it is, republican or democrat.

Sure, all presidents do that to some degree (except Clinton who left a surplus), but Bush is doing it to record levels that even makes Reagan look like a fiscal genius.

[BRussell]

Krugman has an editorial in the NY Times today that raises this issue:

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.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Can anyone tell me when President Bush is going to unveil his economic plan?

It's already taken hold, and is currently working its way through the economy. It's starting to look real good. The Bush plan is kicking in.

U.S. Data Underscores Fast Economic Growth

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's already taken hold, and is currently working its way through the economy. It's starting to look real good. The Bush plan is kicking in.

U.S. Data Underscores Fast Economic Growth

I thought Presidents weren't supposed to have any control over economic trends.

[nvaughan3]

what a bafoon. we've got nearly the highest corporate tax rates already and this idiot wants to drive more jobs out of america by raising them even higher. BRILLIANT LOGIC IDIOT.

[BlackGriffen]

Re: corporate taxes.

I'm getting the impression that Dean cares less for major corporations, that move their jobs overseas anyways, than he does for small businesses.

Here's Dean's small business plan in greater detail than given in the overall economic plan.

The bullet points:

1.____ Create a new financing system within the Small Business Administration,

2.____ Reduce the burden of health care costs on small business,

3.____ Simplify the reporting and paperwork requirements on small business,

4.____ Redirect federal support from large corporations towards small business,

5.____ Connect small businesses to existing sources of capital, and

6.____ Enforce anti-trust laws to level the playing field for small businesses.

A little more detail (keep in mind that I'm trying to grab the meat of the proposals - there is more detail yet available on the linked page for most of these):

(excerpted from details of 1):
The Small Business Administration (SBA) currently operates a limited secondary market program for two of its loan programs, the Section 7A loan guarantee program and the Section 504 program. There is virtually no market for loans not guaranteed by the SBA.

Governor Dean will call for the creation of a new government corporation within the SBA:_ The Small Business Capital Corporation (SBCC).

As a government corporation, the SBCC will issue securities with government status. This will reduce its borrowing costs, with savings passed on to entrepreneurs. The initial appropriation of $25 million a year will cover start-up and operating expenses as well as a reserve against losses on a total loan volume that will be a significant multiple of that amount. The corporation will aim to create $1 billion in new loans within the first three years, creating 100,000 new jobs.

Conversion to a Government Sponsored Enterprise similar to Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae will later provide for an infusion of equity financing._ Within 15 years, the SBCC will be converted to a private company and sold to the public. At that time, sale of this stock will provide an infusion of funds into the SBA to finance existing programs._

(entirety of details of 2):
There are 18.3 million workers in businesses with 50 or fewer employers._ These employers currently spend $82.4 billion on health insurance every year._ Governor Dean's Small Business Growth Plan includes elements from his health care plan that will assist small businesses in two ways:

• Subsidize the purchase of employee health insurance by firms with fewer than 50 employees. This will cost $9.2 billion per year, which is included in the Dean Health Care Plan._
  
• Allow small business employees to purchase insurance through a Universal Health Benefits program, similar to the plan that government employees and members of Congress have that will provide guaranteed health insurance to people at a cost of 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. This will cost $3.3 billion per year, which is also within the Dean Health Care Plan.

Governor Dean's health care plan will save these small businesses a total of $12.5 billion a year, or an average of $680 per employee.[/LIST]
(entirety of 3):
Small businesses should not have to fill out 19 different from the IRS alone in order to comply with tax, social security, unemployment and other federal reporting requirements. As President, Governor Dean will direct the IRS and other agencies to dramatically simplify the forms that small business owners are required to file with the federal government. Reams of paperwork and hours of time can be replaced by a few simple forms. Entrepreneurs should spend their time creating jobs, not dealing with paperwork. As a former small businessperson himself, Governor Dean knows that government regulations sometime overwhelm small businesses in paper.

(excerpted from 4, careful, they forgot to label it):
The Small Business Administration has helped hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs start and expand their businesses. Under the current administration, however, almost all programs are either shrinking or remaining stagnant even as the need for the small business help grows greater. The federal budget contains billions of dollars for corporate welfare which benefit large corporations.

Governor Dean will reverse these skewed priorities._ At a minimum, the SBA performance levels achieved during the Clinton Administration will be re-established.

(excerpted from 5):
Government can help small business owners by aggressively identifying potential borrowers and enlisting private lending institutions to locate and educate good customers._ Governor Dean will expand successful programs like the Business Information Centers and Small Business Development Centers, and direct the SBA to come up with new ideas to make information available.

(entirety of 6):
Large corporations have the power to place enormous pressures on small businesses. For example, large corporations may refuse to deal to deal with smaller firms, by canceling franchises or distributorships, or they may favor one customer over another. There may be agreements among them not to deal with a certain company.

The anti-trust laws forbid all of these practices, and strict enforcement is essential to preserving_ the rights of small businesses to compete effectively. Business conduct in the form of an unreasonable restraint of trade or an unfair method of competition must not be tolerated. As President, Governor Dean will make vigorous enforcement of the anti-trust laws an important part of his Small Business Growth Plan.

This section of his economic plan looks pretty good to me. I was wondering what the conservatives on the board thought about the bit that I put in bold.

I'm also wondering what number 6 might entail for us Mac fans?

BlackGriffen

[nvaughan3]

well, he spells out his plan in good detail. It's a nice change whether he would ultimately follow it or not.

[moki]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
So, what does the peanut gallery think? I'm going to glance over the pdf right now, myself, and rejoin the fight (I mean, conversation ) later.

Some of the ideas do sound good, but shifting the tax burden more towards corporations seems like one of ideas that is intended to resonate with the masses, but will end up with messy and unintended consequences.

Most corporations are owned by average working people who buy stock, or have their money invested in various 401K/403B programs. Anything that detrimentally harms corporations will likewise detrimentally affect not just the people that work in said corporations, but also those who own corporate stock.

We're already having enough of an issue with jobs and corporations moving overseas, something tells me that jacking the corporate tax rate up isn't going to help the situation at all.

Corporations are in business to make money, and are general quite pragmatic. If you make the environment they have to live in too much of a burden, they will move elsewhere.

[davesimondotcom]

Create jobs by raising taxes (yes, repealing tax cuts and "evening out the tax burden" are both code for raising taxes) will never work to improve an economy.

Deficits should be gotten rid of, but not by raising taxes. Spend less wastefully. How hard is it for a politician to say that?

I agree tax code should be simplified. But, I fear that to Dean that means - shaft the corporations and "rich," but do it with fewer forms.

[finboy]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:


1.____ Create a new financing system within the Small Business Administration,

2.____ Reduce the burden of health care costs on small business,

3.____ Simplify the reporting and paperwork requirements on small business,

4.____ Redirect federal support from large corporations towards small business,

5.____ Connect small businesses to existing sources of capital, and

6.____ Enforce anti-trust laws to level the playing field for small businesses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Criticisms:
Point 1: Create even more Federal positions -- why not reform what we have now? Oh, because it works. (See Point 5 response, below)

Point 2: By reducing that burden, doesn't it mean that someone else has to pick up the tab? Govt. perhaps? Or just taxpayers in general?

Point 3: Inconsistent with almost all of these points, and implies that some federal employees will lose their jobs. It will never happen.

Point 4: Implies that fed support currently is directed toward large businesses. If anything, large businesses are just more efficient in dealing with all the red tape. Anything that further entangles small business in the bureaucratic web of Washington will be harmful -- they don't have time to deal with it. Unless they're artificially subsidized or promised contracts based upon something other than their ability to perform.

Point 5: "existing sources of capital" should be already connected, by definition. What he probably means is "government-subsidized loans." These are currently being issued in record numbers -- read any big bank's Q3 statements and you'll see them bragging about it.

Point 6: Oh good, another Justice Department foray into the allocation process. Didn't the Microsoft fiasco teach them anything? So I guess WalMart is going to be a monopoly now.

Finally, although I'd like to see some small business reforms, they ain't on this list (except 3, but it ain't happening). Point 3 represents the throw-away b.s. one that Dean put out there as a tease. The other stuff represent more ways to get govt. fingers in business at the earliest stages.

As an afterthought: Who the fvck is Howard Dean, anyway? Governor of where?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by finboy:
Criticisms:
Point 1: Create even more Federal positions -- why not reform what we have now? Oh, because it works. (See Point 5 response, below)

Isn't expanding a program one way of 'reforming' the system?

Point 2: By reducing that burden, doesn't it mean that someone else has to pick up the tab? Govt. perhaps? Or just taxpayers in general?

Did you read the details behind proposal (click the actual link, not just read the summary I provided)? First, yes, there will be some government subsidies. There will also be savings from collective bargaining.

Point 3: Inconsistent with almost all of these points, and implies that some federal employees will lose their jobs. It will never happen.

Unless those employees are shifted laterally to the expanded programs, in which case government won't see a net expansion.

Point 4: Implies that fed support currently is directed toward large businesses. If anything, large businesses are just more efficient in dealing with all the red tape. Anything that further entangles small business in the bureaucratic web of Washington will be harmful -- they don't have time to deal with it. Unless they're artificially subsidized or promised contracts based upon something other than their ability to perform.

Except you're assuming that point 3 won't happen. You should also read and respond to the more detailed explanation later in the post. Unless, of course, you're not familiar enough with the programs to offer substantive criticism.

Point 5: "existing sources of capital" should be already connected, by definition. What he probably means is "government-subsidized loans." These are currently being issued in record numbers -- read any big bank's Q3 statements and you'll see them bragging about it.

Nope, read the details. This is about informing small business owners about what sources of capital are already available. Capital is only connected 'by definition' if you assume that everyone is perfectly informed.

Point 6: Oh good, another Justice Department foray into the allocation process. Didn't the Microsoft fiasco teach them anything? So I guess WalMart is going to be a monopoly now.

From the details, yet again, this looks like he wants to keep the barriers to market entry low. Isn't that one of the requirements of effective competition? Isn't competition supposed to be what provides the benefits of capitalism?

Besides, the Microsoft 'fiasco' was more about a change in administration leading to the justice Department snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Finally, although I'd like to see some small business reforms, they ain't on this list (except 3, but it ain't happening). Point 3 represents the throw-away b.s. one that Dean put out there as a tease. The other stuff represent more ways to get govt. fingers in business at the earliest stages.

As an afterthought: Who the fvck is Howard Dean, anyway? Governor of where?

Commenting on issues despite being rather uninformed, are we? Bad form. Bad form, indeed.

BlackGriffen

P.S. Dean isn't just one of the candidates, he's the leading candidate by most measures (money primary, early state polls, etc).

[finboy]

My point about Dean is that he's a "who" candidate. As in "Howard Who?" I know who all of the Dem candidates are, but I'm with Mama Bush in ranking the list. Not a brain trust exactly.

As for "the specifics" -- I've read them, and he's still short on substance. Given the amount of money we currently spend correcting the problems he hints at or implies, throwing more money at it in the guise of "reform" doesn't seem likely to help.

I guess we have to temper any criticism using Howard "Who?" Dean's reputation as a small businessperson. I'm sure that he's participated in front-row capitalism long enough to understand, I mean really understand, all the incentives and effects of the stuff that he's recommending. Right? His recommendations are based upon years and years of small business experience, aren't they? Or maybe his "advisors" have all the expertise. In any case, I'm sure that changing government is all that we need to get this whole capitalism thing going again. Anyone who runs a small business will tell you that.

[BlackGriffen]

An argument from ignorance is not exactly the strongest argument you could make, finboy. Especially given your penchant to appeal to yourself as an authority.

Some background info:

He received his B.A. from Yale University in 1971 and his medical degree from Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City in 1978. He served in the Vermont House from 1982 to 1986, was elected lieutenant governor in 1986, and became governor in 1991 with the death of then-Governor Richard Snelling.

In the gap between his BA and going to medical school, he worked on Wall Street (an investment banker?). He comes from a long line of bankers in New York.

Also, I don't care if you've read the specifics, what matters to me is if you address the specifics. And, no, terming what he proposes "throwing more money at the problem" is not addressing specifics.

BlackGriffen