Gore's Tax and Spend Policies (Re: Pollitt on Nader

Max Sawicky sawicky at epinet.org
Thu Sep 28 11:38:22 PDT 2000


NEWMAN!

Said I, " . . . -Most of Gore's tax cuts are conditional. Why should -you have to do something the Gov wants you to do to -get a tax cut, in light of $260 billion surpluses. -Bush's are much less so, albeit to the wrong people.

Pronounceth Nathan, "Conditional tax cuts" is another word for government spending. All government spending is conditional- ie. it tells you we are giving you health care coverage rather than letting you spend the same money on a big screen television. What a bizarro Republican line you want to take Max to keep calling Gore's spending conservative. . . . "

WRONG! Soc Sec benefits aren't conditional. Neither is any other cash transfer, of which there are a number. You can spend them on whatever you like, like big screen televisions, or even one a' them fancy flat screen you put on the ceiling over your bed. Revenue sharing wasn't conditional. Personal\ exemptions aren't conditional. Etc. etc.

The components of Gore's plan are not all 'conservative.' The fiscal framework is ridiculously so.

Apparently we are defining liberalism here as some narrowly pitched benefit that makes the tax code more complicated, often going to someone who would have performed the subsidized activity in any case. This is the sort of thing that gives it a bad name.

But it can only help me politically to be called a bizarro republican, so heap it on.

Here's an hypothesis. Discuss amongst yourselves:

what progressives need are large, simple proposals for transparent, redistributive cash transfer programs for broadly popular purposes (i.e., working families with children, young people just starting out their careers, higher ed, or business enterprises. Not narrowly targeted, means-tested fiscally constipated, numerous programs entailing high levels of bureaucratic overhead.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But let's look at the $10,000 Gore projects for this family with two small children. This family is decribed this way: "A couple from Michigan has two children ages 2 and 4. The husband earns $24,700 as a short-order cook. The wife works full-time at the corner supermarket and earns the minimum wage. They have two children, a 2 year old in childcare and a 4 year old who has just started preschool. They are saving $10 every week for a down payment on a home."

Marriage Penalty Relief $225 Child / Childcare Tax Credit $600 Tax Credit for Savings $500 EITC Expansion $303 Minimum Wage Increase $2,000 Expanding Health Coverage $3,400 Qualified Universal Pre-School $2,400
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'm not sure what the point of this is. If you tailor an exemplary family you can find $10K of benefits. But all the others who don't fit don't see the $10K.

Reject liberalism and try social democracy: Big, expensive universal programs serving broad purposes that eliminate boundaries within the working class.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Most of the $10,000 in new federal spending Gore projects is not even for tax cuts in any way, but is rather for health care spending and the expansion of federal spending for universal pre-school, with a large minimum wage kicker.

Wanting "more" is always a good position for progressives to demand, but it seems quite strange to call conservative a set of programs that would increase federal resources going to this family at a rate 50% above their present income. You are so fixated on the hypothetical anti-Keynesianism of his nominal budgeting projections that you seem to ignore the real projections of substantive expansions of spending by the government.
>>>>>>>>>>>

[mbs] Resources to your example family (I expect they'll be sitting next to Tipper during the SOTU address) are not a very useful criterion for evaluating Gore. A better one would be distributional effect, but that's hard to do. Another would be total cost of programs pitched to families below the median, and that's easy to do.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is reasonable to argue whether the plan will be implemented, but on its face, this seems like a quite progressive spending plan, especially since the benefits are skewed proportionately towards lower-income families, a radical difference from Bush's plan which does deliver nearly all the benefits to the richest folks. -- Nathan Newman

see above.

mbs



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list