Looking for a way to drive a wedge between front-running candidate Howard Dean and Democratic primary voters, Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has surprisingly resorted to defending President Bush's tax cuts.
Referring to the former Vermont governor's call for total repeal of the President's tax cuts, Kerry said in a clip played on Fox News on June 9: "If you do what Howard Dean wants to do, a family earning $40,000 is going to pay an additional $2,000 in taxes."
Kerry, who voted against the Bush tax cuts (along with almost every other Democrat in Congress), is speaking the truth here. But he is putting other members of his party in an awkward situation. If the Bush tax cuts reduced taxes by $2,000 for a family making $40,000 per year, how can they be described as "tax cuts for the rich"?
HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor David Freddoso put this question directly to members of Congress.
Sen. Kerry said of Howard Dean's plan to repeal Bush's tax cuts: "If you do what Howard Dean wants to do, a family earning $40,000 is going to pay an additional $2,000 in taxes." Given Kerry's argument, is it correct to call the cuts, "tax cuts for the rich?"
SEN. MARIA CANTWELL (D.-WASH.): What are you talking about? You're talking about the overall tax cut that we passed?
Right, because Dean said we should repeal the whole thing. But Kerry is saying that if you do that, this family that's making $40,000 will pay $2,000 more.
CANTWELL: There are some aspects of the package that I've supported in other measures, and yes, there are some things for lower-income people that it would be good to keep on the books.
Do you think that the provisions for higher-income earners are damaging somehow?
CANTWELL: I think we have a huge challenge now with the deficit. It's more expensive, and we're going to have to figure our way out through it.
Sen. Kerry said yesterday of Howard Dean's plan to repeal the President's tax cuts: "If you do what Howard Dean wants to do, a family earning $40,000 is going to pay an additional $2,000 in taxes." Given Kerry's argument, do you believe it is correct to call the cuts, "tax cuts for the rich?"
REP. LEONARD BOSWELL (D.-IOWA): I haven't heard him. I haven't talked about it. I just haven't had a chance to get the information. I'm not up to speed. I've been tied up in the Intelligence Committee. I'll just have to catch you later.
I understand. Let me just ask your opinion on this: Howard Dean's plan to repeal the tax cuts-would you be in favor of that plan?
BOSWELL: I never voted for the tax cuts. Let me tell you something: You can't just keep digging this hole deeper. It's so deep. You've got to quit digging. You've got to figure out somehow to get things. You've got another $87 billion request, what's next?
Can't something be done on the spending side-to bring it down without asking people for more money?
BOSWELL: It would have to be an awful lot on the spending side.
You wouldn't have any specific-
BOSWELL: Well, it's always right to review everything. We just did the [Agriculture] Committee. You're up to speed on that?
No, I'm not.
BOSWELL: We just did that. You ought to check on that.
John Kerry said last night of Howard Dean's plan to repeal Bush's tax cuts: "If you do what Howard Dean wants to do, a family earning $40,000 is going to pay an additional $2,000 in taxes." Given his argument, is it fair or accurate to characterize those tax cuts as "tax cuts for the wealthy?"
REP. JOHN CONYERS (D.-MICH.): First of all, I don't know if that's accurate. Secondly, if it is accurate, then I think there would be a case that referring to Bush's tax cuts as tax cuts for the wealthy might be inaccurate.
You think it might be inaccurate in that case?
CONYERS:Yes.
John Kerry wants to repeal some of the tax cuts and Howard Dean wants to repeal all of them. Do you agree with either of those plans, and would you favor one over the other?
CONYERS: I would probably like to start all over again with tax cuts.
You'd like to raise them back to where they were-taxes, I mean?
CONYERS: Yeah, leave them where they originally were, and then create a new tax cut plan. That's what I'd rather do.
What sort of tax cut would you like to see?
CONYERS: More equitable than the ones the President enacted.
Meaning that you would want to skew more of the burden on higher earners than currently?
CONYERS: Yes.
Sen. Kerry said last night of Howard Dean's plan to repeal Bush's tax cuts: "If you do what Howard Dean wants to do, a family earning $40,000 is going to pay an additional $2,000 in taxes." Given Kerry's argument, is it fair to characterize those tax cuts as "tax cuts for the wealthy?"
REP. STEPHEN LYNCH (D.-MASS.): No, what he's saying is, he would repeal the tax cuts on the wealthiest segment of the population, the high end, but he would leave those in place.
Right. But given the argument he's making-that repealing the tax cuts would have that effect. Does that make it seem that maybe this isn't really a tax cut for the wealthy if repealing it is going to hurt poor people like that?
LYNCH: Well, yes. But if you made $42,000 last year, you got $1,800 back in taxes. If you made a million bucks, you got a tax cut of $93,000.
Do you think that that hurts the lower-income earners, if the higher income earners are getting. . . .
LYNCH: Obviously, you can get a whole lot of money from a really small amount of the population-the really rich. And that's the way I understand it. . . .
Sen. Kerry said of Howard Dean's plan to repeal the President's tax cuts: "If you do what Howard Dean wants to do, a family earning $40,000 is going to pay an additional $2,000 in taxes." Given Kerry's argument, is it fair to characterize Bush's tax cuts as "tax cuts for the wealthy?"
SEN. BEN NELSON (D.-NEB.): There's no question that there were very favorable income tax cuts for high-income families. No doubt about it. But there were also very positive tax cuts for middle-income and lower-income Americans as well. So I think it's probably a fair assessment of what would happen-when you cut back on a tax cut, obviously it has the effect of increasing one's tax liability, therefore you could probably support what Sen. Kerry said.
Given the situation now, would you oppose rolling back any of the tax cuts?
NELSON: Yes. They were passed to stimulate the economy. My hope is that it will stimulate growth faster than it will ultimately stimulate and grow the deficit. But you also have the potential negative impact of undoing what has been done, and what effect that could have on the economy. So there are a lot of considerations, but I would oppose rolling back tax cuts.
John Kerry said of Howard Dean's plan to repeal Bush's tax cuts: "If you do what Howard Dean wants to do, a family earning $40,000 is going to pay an additional $2,000 in taxes." Given Kerry's argument, is it fair to characterize Bush's tax cuts as "tax cuts for the wealthy?"
REP. GENE TAYLOR (D.-MISS.): I think the answer is that the big winners of the tax cuts were indeed the wealthiest Americans. The big losers are every American, because they increased the national debt by $1.1 trillion dollars. They borrowed that money from the likes of the Red Chinese, and we'll pay interest on it to the tune of a billion a day for the rest of our lives. And if you think that's a good idea, then you should vote for it.
