Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (3620)	7/22/2003 1:45:51 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794298

Saddam can't be too far behind When we get Saddam the left will shut up for a few days, but without WMDs, the carping will continue. These people lost the war over having a war, and will never quit their bitching.

To: carranza2 who wrote (3620)	7/22/2003 2:24:17 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 794298

GRAHAM PULLS LEFT By NICOLE GELINAS - NEW YORK POST COLUMNIST July 22, 2003 -- HOWARD Dean is forcing his fellow Democratic presidential hopefuls to the unelectable left on foreign policy issues. But what about the economy? President Bush may have found an unwitting ally on this front in candidate Bob Graham, who wants to stake the recovery of America's private-sector economy on a giant public-works-fest that will cost American taxpayers more than $50 billion during the first year of a hypothetical Graham administration. Democrats have struggled to find a starting point from which to attack Bush on economic issues. They have the ballooning federal budget deficit, but a candidate struggling to connect with voters can't build a personality around an obscure fiscal policy issue. Dems can campaign against the high unemployment rate and the sullen stock market, but any candidate who stakes his campaign on these points does so with a religious faith in his own economic forecasting. If the markets improve by next fall, Bush will snatch the issue away from his general-election opponent. But now along comes Sen. Graham, who unveiled an economic proposal last week that seems tailor-made for hard-core, left-wing primary voters. One part Herbert Hoover and one part John Maynard Keynes, Graham's unabashed tax-and-spend plan is so startlingly counter to centrist views that his fellow candidates will be forced to take a position on it during primary-season debates. In case voters are worried that the federal government doesn't spend enough money, Graham has a laundry list of new government programs; $12.5 billion a year in federal school-construction spending and $18 billion a year in new transportation spending are just a start. Graham's other spending proposals include billions for federally funded technology and broadband research (because we all know that the private sector has no interest in investing in technology and telecommunications). Graham's new government spending will just take money away from private-sector investors, who can target their investments much more efficiently than can federal bureaucrats. Worse, Graham wants to turn a national security issue into a pork-barrel funnel. Give him points for honesty: Graham wants to spend $13 billion in homeland-security funds specifically to pump up the public-sector economy. But artificial federal spending is only one-half of a dysfunctional economic program. Graham has the other half covered: He wants to raise taxes again. Centrist presidential candidates have been shy about their position on repealing the Bush tax cuts; they understand that in a couple of years' time, voters will view a tax cut repeal as a tax increase. Not Graham: Point One of the revenue side of his economic plan is to erase the Bush dividends and capital-gains tax cuts. Never mind that some nonpartisan economists credit Citigroup's decision to increase its cash dividend, which puts cash in the hands of small and large investors alike, in part to the Bush tax cuts. Never mind that the dividend tax cut forces executives to maintain a steady cash flow base, reducing reliance on noncash gimmicks. Graham can't worry about such things: After all, he needs the money for his new spending. Graham also wants to push up taxes for wealth-producing Americans beyond recent historical bounds: He proudly calls his proposed 40 percent tax bracket the "Millionaire's Bracket." (He plans to spend the money left over after job-killing tax increases and budget-busting spending plans on a modest payroll tax holiday.) This open class warfare is all in the name of "Restoring Tax Fairness." But middle-class Americans might be interested to know that, according to the Heritage Foundation, more than two-thirds of super wealthy taxpayers are small business owners who opt to pay individual income taxes rather than corporate income taxes. Does Graham want small business owners to cut jobs to save money for the U.S. Treasury? For some reason, Graham thinks all this will create 3 million jobs. It's hard to see how, unless the jobs are equally split between road builders and tax collectors. Thankfully for the economy, Graham will never be president; he's polling badly behind higher-profile candidates like Dean. But unless Graham's competitors can come up with economic plans to rival Graham's in terms of shock value and showmanship, debate moderators will surely seize on Graham's proposal this winter as a benchmark for the other primary-election candidates' positions. Will Sen. Joe Lieberman, Sen. John Kerry and the rest of the Democratic lineup repudiate Graham's Depression-era plans to boost the economy through public-sector spending funded by new private-sector taxes? Or, will the candidates decide that they can't risk losing a share of the leftist primary vote to the lost-cause Graham? Either way, public debate over Graham's fantasy boondoggle will serve to remind voters what the Democrats really want for America's economy. nypost.com