John Kerry Tax Plan Violates 2nd Presidential Debate Promise

John Kerry Tax Plan Violates 2nd Presidential Debate Promise
Factcheck.org says plan "would hit some people making less than $200,000"

Note: Freepers Always Right, woodb01, and others first identified this in previous posts (see end of this post for threads). I am posting additional supporting information to front page news, since the information is factual and well sourced and I believe that the story is certainly worthy of mainstream media attention. Enlightiator.

GIBSON: Senator Kerry, the next question will be for you, and it comes from James Varner, who I believe is in this section.

Senator Kerry, would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term?

KERRY: Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera. Yes. I am not going to raise taxes.

The Kerry-Edwards Economic Plan (http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/economic_plan.pdf) indicates that it will "restore top two rates" for a 10 year "savings" of 337 billion dollars. The Factcheck.org article (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=154.html) quoted above indicates that this would produce only 224 billion dollars over 10 years. If Kerry changes his tax plan in order to meet his second debate promise to America of not raising taxes for families making less than $200,000, he will have to adjust "what would become the 36 percent bracket" as the Washington post article cited above indicates. This will produce

even less than the 224 billion cited in the Factcheck.org article, falling far short of Kerry's projected 337 billion dollar "savings." So Kerry will have to revise his tax plan one way or the other, he can't have it both ways.

The Factcheck.org article (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=154.html) quoted above indicates that this would produce only 224 billion dollars over 10 years.

Not only that, but it ignores the fact that people may not produce as much taxable income if rates go up.

BTW, one somewhat analagous 'example' of Democrat thinking I came up with awhile ago: suppose the there is a 50% tax on widgets and widget sales are $1,000,000/year. How much money will the tax take in?

Suppose someone proposes cutting the widget tax from 50% to 10%. How much would that tax-break be expected to "cost"?

Now suppose that widget sales increase tenfold consequent to the tax-cut. Now how much does the tax-break cost?

Republican answer: it doesn't cost anything. In fact, it doubled the amount of revenue collected by the widget tax from $500,000 to $1,000,000. Clearly letting the tax-cut lapse would be insane.

Democrat answer: the tax break is a disaster. It was forecast to cost $400,000, which would have been bad enough, but has instead grown out of control to cost $4,000,000. We can't possibly afford that! We must repeal that tax cut at once before we go bankrupt.

"Wow, do you have the exact quote. Sounds like great ammo at the next debate. First quote Kerry in last debate about his pledge and then quote Edwards showing that that pledge was meaningless."

from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134978,00.html

WALLACE: Sure sounds like a tax-and-spend liberal.

EDWARDS: No, I don't think so. If you look at John Kerry's record, Chris, he has a long history of fighting for fiscal responsibility, of fighting for balanced budgets. He stood up against his own party back in the 1980s to move us toward fiscal responsibility. He's been fighting basically the entire time he's been in the United States Senate for more cops on the street, more tax cuts for the middle class.

And I think the reality is, John Kerry is right in the mainstream, and what the president's saying is a distortion.

WALLACE: Let's look at the map of the Kerry-Edwards budget plan. The highly respected and independent Concord Coalition came out with an analysis this week. Let's take a look at it.

Your repeal of tax cuts for the rich and reform of the estate tax would bring in an extra $286 billion over 10 years. But your health- care plan would cost $476 billion. More education funding would cost $155 billion. Adding 40,000 troops would mean another $60 billion. The total increase, according to the independent Concord Coalition, in deficit: $1.27 trillion over 10 years.

Senator, the numbers don't add up.

EDWARDS: Well, I would respectfully disagree with that.

And I have to say first, we have enormous respect for the Concord Coalition. They do a lot of important and good work about fiscal responsibility. But there are some things left out, first of all, and the way they calculate some of those things we would certainly disagree with.

But, in terms of the things that are left out, I mean, we would also close down some corporate welfare and some corporate loopholes, and John McCain has said that would save $300 billion.

On top of that, we would also reduce some bureaucratic spending in Washington and some overlap between some bureaucratic agencies in Washington, which would also save many billions of dollars.

And I would add at the end of all that, John Kerry and I have made absolutely clear, Chris, that we have made this commitment. We are going to meet our commitment. And what that means is, if we have to scale something back, we will scale it back. And we are committed to doing that, and John Kerry's made that commitment.

WALLACE: Well, I want to follow up on precisely that point, because in Friday's debate, Senator Kerry said that he would cut the deficit in half during his first term, he would cut taxes for the middle class, but he also had all these new spending programs.

Are you saying right here and now that if the numbers, when you get into office, don't add up, that it's the spending programs that go first?

EDWARDS: Yes. Plus the other -- don't forget the other things that I just said. But yes, on top of the other things I said, if we have to cut something back -- for example, I know John's already talked about, if necessary, cutting back national service programs, early childhood, I mean, some other things that are near and dear to our heart. But if they're necessary, we'll do it.

I just have to say, though -- you have to give me a second on this --you know, for the president to be attacking John Kerry for fiscal responsibility is outrageous. I mean, they took a $5 trillion surplus, projected surplus, turned it into a $3 trillion projected deficit in four years -- $8 trillion turnaround, the biggest turnaround in American history.

You know, according to the newspapers, they've got another $3 trillion of spending in tax cuts that they have absolutely no way of paying for. I mean, they have been the walking, breathing example of fiscal irresponsibility. And for them to be critical of Senator Kerry on this is the height of hypocrisy.

WALLACE: But again, just to clear it up, I just want to make clear that you're saying that even Kerry's cherished health-care plan, he would cut that back before he would add to the deficit or raise taxes on the middle class?

EDWARDS: We will not raise taxes on the middle class, as John said clearly. And we will cut back -- we will cut back on our programs if it's necessary to make sure that that happens.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.