Washington Post: Presidential candidate Dick Gephardt called for completely repealing Bush’s tax cuts, and providing a tax credit to pay for employers to provide health care for all employees. In the story is a quote from “an operative from a competing campaign”:
“There isn’t going to be a single candidate who disagrees with the goal that Gephardt has laid out,” said an operative from a competing campaign. “However, by taking money out of the economy, which is what his plan would do, he will be criticized not only by the right, but by some Democrats, and by any economist worth his salt. The debate prior to this point has been about rolling back the unenacted portions of the tax cut, in large part because it is commonly understood by experts that taking money out of the economy in the midst of a downturn would only exacerbate that downturn.”
Now let’s see if we can guess which competing campaign would exactly quote Bush, saying that “taxes take money out of the economy.” Could it be … LIEBERMAN?
As a matter of fact, the tax CUTS take money out of the economy, causing layoffs of government workers as well as layoff of workers at companies that supply the government, and spending cuts by those laid-off workers in all the places they otherwise spend money, like clothing andgrocery stores, etc. and on like that through the economy while the Bush tax cuts just hand money to idle rich who then put the money in offshore accounts. On the other hand, this health care plan, paid for by repealing the tax cuts, would put $200 billion a year INTO the economy. I wonder if “any economist worth ‘his’ salt” — and maybe some female economists as well — would disagree with that?
From the story,
The Gephardt campaign asked Kenneth A. Thorpe, chairman of the health policy and management department at Emory University — and a former Clinton White House adviser — to do an analysis of the proposal. Thorpe concluded that the plan would cost about $214 billion a year and cover about 30 million of the nation’s 41 million uninsured, resulting in about 97 percent of the population being insured.
Not quite universal health coverage, but a big step.