posted on July 12, 2004 10:00:51 PM new
By Don Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Sen. John Kerry's campaign proposals would result in $226 billion in higher spending in the first year of his presidency, including an additional $115 billion in social welfare, foreign aid, and environmental and energy costs, according to a study of his budgetary recommendations.
The study by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF), which will be released later this week, finds that Mr. Kerry's budget proposals, which he says would slash the deficit in half over four years, would increase spending well beyond his estimates.
"Despite Kerry's attempts to outflank Bush on the deficit issue and portray himself as the more fiscally responsible candidate, the data behind Kerry's rhetoric tell a different story," said Drew Johnson, the study's author.
"Enactment of Kerry's 'revised' spending agenda in its entirety would still mean higher taxes, a larger national debt or likely both," he said.
Using the Kerry campaign's data and budget estimates from independent sources such as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to assess the cost of each budget recommendation, the NTUF said the Massachusetts liberal's proposals would add $734.6 billion to the government's bills over five years.
Since he announced his presidential candidacy, Mr. Kerry has made 70 policy proposals that would affect spending, five of which would reduce spending.
"Overall, Senator Kerry proposes spending $770.6 billion over five years to fund his projects, while suggesting just $35.99 billion in budget cuts," the study says.
"This leaves $734.62 billion unaccounted for and presumably passed on to American taxpayers in the form of increased taxes or suffocating debt," the study said.
When he introduced his budget proposals at Georgetown University earlier this year, Mr. Kerry said his spending recommendations would be "paid for" through higher taxes on the wealthy, budget cuts and other increased tax revenues.
But the Bush-Cheney campaign has said that repealing the president's tax cuts for those in the top tax bracket would not yield enough money to pay for the senator's new spending and that he would be forced to raise lower tax rates to achieve his budgetary goals.
The NTUF analysis of the Kerry spending plan reaches the same conclusion.
"If John Kerry were indeed to 'pay for' every program he has proposed as a presidential candidate, as he promised in the April 7 speech at Georgetown, the average taxpayer in the U.S. would face an additional $2,206 in taxes in the first year of a Kerry presidency alone," the study says.
Mr. Kerry's spending increase over a four-year term would total $621.76 billion, study figures show.
"That translates to an average increased tax burden of $6,066 for every person paying federal taxes in America over Kerry's first term," it says.
But the NTUF study does not spare President Bush's record, pointing out that he has presided over major increases in spending, although they are well below what Mr. Kerry would spend.
"Lost among Bush's attack on Kerry's plans for costly programs is the president's own disturbing record on spending, which includes a 29 percent increase in the size of the federal budget during his first term," Mr. Johnson said.
In addition to Mr. Kerry's newest spending proposals, the study also totaled the cost of all of the bills he has supported or co-sponsored in the Senate in the past year to get an indication of his spending habits as a senator.
This tally finds that he sponsored or co-sponsored $182 billion worth of new legislation last year and voted to increase federal spending by $466.5 billion in 2002.
The study concludes that Mr. Kerry's proposed spending caps, "meant to convince Americans that he would usher in a new era of austerity, are actually so porous as to be no more effective than the restraints George W. Bush has sought."
--------------
Re-elect President Bush!!
posted on July 13, 2004 02:12:55 AM new
Why does it not surprise me that kerry's supporters don't want to discuss the reality of the costs for all the promises kerry's been making....in exchange for all that support and those votes, and the fact HIS numbers don't add up.
Must be that darn ol' double standard rearing it's ugly head again. Complaining all the time about the deficit under this President....but no complaints about an even larger one, under Kerry.
Get ready for those TAX INCREASES everyone....if fate plays a cruel joke on this county and kerry gets elected.
posted on July 13, 2004 02:45:06 AM new
Linda, so many people are upset with Bush. They might not really care for Kerry, but imo, I think many feel he's had his time, or his chance.
Unless they can pull off some miracle (although by the numbers Kerry is only 4 points ahead, not including margin error - or so THEY say..) but do yu think you're ready to face that Kerry just might win this thing?
<smiling because I have a feeling you'll tell you are not ready for that and never will be! heh!>
Bush is continuing to spend money we don't have in Iraq and not at home and has plans to spend more money we don't have on projects like counseling for married couples on welfare. Give me a big fat break. At least he plans on spending the money here at home and not in Iraq. For some reason, I don't think your article tells the full story.
If I had time, I'd google a rebuttal, but I have other things to do.
posted on July 13, 2004 03:54:31 AM new
Mr. Kerry said his spending recommendations would be "paid for" through higher taxes on the wealthy. GO JOHN KERRY. Its about time the very wealthy pay their fair share.
No one can believe what Bush/Cheney and the right say about anything any longer.
I am tired of paying $850.00 per month for health insurance. In the last 3 1/2 years under Bush/Cheney my health insurance cost has has gone up big time and its coverage has gone down big time.
In the last 3 1/2 years my income has gone down under Bush/Cheney.
THE MIDDLE AND WORKING CLASS NEED TO OUTSOURCE BUSH/CHENEY BEFORE ITS TO LATE.
posted on July 13, 2004 04:46:53 AM new
neroter - LOL @ but do you think you're ready to face that Kerry just might win this thing?
No, I have more faith in the American public than that. There can't possibly be that many who are that ignorant.
------------------
Oh cheryl, are you for some reason under the impression that by some miracle the costs of war in Iraq are going to just disappear under a kerry administration? I sure hope not....because that wouldn't be facing reality. kerry's projected spending will be in ADDITION to what's being spent now.
------------
And then there's bigpeepa who has been totally fooled thinking anybody but the middle class is going to get their taxes raised to pay for all these promises. Yea...right.
posted on July 13, 2004 04:57:14 AM new
I also wanted to mention, bigpeepa, that YOU will STILL be paying your own insurance premiums....this tax increase of kerry's will be added to that high burden you currently have. You're not one of the 27 million that will be getting coverage under kerry's plan.
---------
Also....I really like how all the 'rich' democrats having been telling us they don't need the Bush tax cut money....they'd be willing to go along with kerry's plan for those who make over $200,000 a year. Yea right....read this and get informed.
taken from the WSJ today -
[i]Liberal Loopholes Edwards and Kerry want to raise taxes, but aren't wild about paying them.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
In embracing John Edwards, John Kerry has also endorsed his populist "two Americas" rhetoric and has put tax increases at the center of the election campaign.
So it's fair to ask the two Democrats: How much of those tax increases will actually hit the super-rich like yourselves, and how much will end up on the backs of upper middle-class wage earners?
.......
[i]So when John Kerry and John Edwards say that they want to tax the wealthiest Americans, let's be clear about what they really mean. They want to tax the most productive people at higher marginal rates and close loopholes for corporations, while they themselves dodge taxes by exploiting loopholes they plan to preserve.
Mr. Edwards is right that there really are two Americas. The people who work for their money and want to keep more of their own paychecks.
And wealthy politicians who want to raise taxes on the middle class secure in the knowledge that they won't have to pay.
posted on July 13, 2004 06:18:53 AM new
ONE MORE TIME LINDA_K. ITS TIME FOR THE RICH TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!!!!!!!!!!
ONE MORE TIME LINDA_K, I AM TIRED OF PAYING $850.00 PER MONTH FOR SHITTY HEALTH INSURANCE. UNDER BUSH/CHENEY HEALTH COST WENT UP AND COVERAGE WENT DOWN.
ONE MORE TIME LINDA_K, I AM TIRED OF PAYING MORE FOR A LOT OF THINGS LIKE GAS AND INSURANCE UNDER BUSH/CHENEY WHILE MY EARNINGS WENT DOWN.
LINDA_K, I AM ALSO ESPECIALLY TIRED OF YOUR RIGHT WING COPY AND PASTE BULL ROAR. ITS ALL JUST BIG TIME BULL ROAR AND LIES.
I AM TIRED OF A BAD WAR UNDER BUSH/CHENEY WHERE OVER 1000 TROOPS HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES AND WE ARE STILL COUNTING. A BAD WAR THAT BAGS OF WIND LIKE YOU SUPPORT.
ITS TIME FOR THE AMERICAN MIDDLE AND WORKING CLASS TO OUTSOURCE BUSH/CHENEY AND OLD BAGS OF LIES.
[ edited by bigpeepa on Jul 13, 2004 01:25 PM ]
posted on July 13, 2004 06:38:55 AM new
I do believe you're beginning to lose control of yourself, bigpeepa.
I understand though, reading the truth and it finally sinking in that kerry will be raising your taxes *THAT high in the first year alone*...would be upsetting. Along with finding out you won't be one of those covered under kerry's suggested medical health plan after all.
So sorry....but hey...anybody but Bush is what you said.
posted on July 13, 2004 06:50:20 AM new
Linda, did the WSJ really call them liberal loopholes? If you say it fast it sure sounds like something else. lol.
posted on July 13, 2004 07:01:39 AM new
And then there's the fact that what Kerry proposes will cost far, far less than what Bush proposes...
Bush is running this country deeper and deeper into debt.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 13, 2004 07:09:29 AM new
Some people prefer to just stick their heads in the sand rather than to look at reality. I believe that alot of dems are going on faith as their reasoning for whom they are voting for.
posted on July 13, 2004 07:56:15 AM new
Does that mean Kerry and his wife would be paying for my taxes.
What I want someone to tell me is why when the wealthy has made their money, invested it
and now because they are wealthy they have to pay more because I am in the middle class where if I would have done the same as the wealthy person I could have been wealthy also. Why does a wealthy person who inherited money to become wealthy have to pay higher taxes. Is that fair?
Because I chose to spend my money instead of saving it I don't have to pay higher taxes?
It is easy for us to say tax the wealthy BUT shouldn't taxation be the same for everyone? In the end because they have money they will pay more taxes but to overtax them I feel is wrong.
Everyone has to pay their fair share wealthy or not. JMHO
posted on July 13, 2004 09:19:00 AM new
From the OP,
""Lost among Bush's attack on Kerry's plans for costly programs is the president's own disturbing record on spending, which includes a 29 percent increase in the size of the federal budget during his first term,"
posted on July 13, 2004 10:55:54 AM newSen. John Kerry's campaign proposals would result in $226 billion in higher spending in the first year of his presidency
Bush has spent more than that on Iraq and has given us record deficits.
Government doesn't owe you anything and you wil see your taxes increase also...
So our government only owes health care and schools to the Iraqi people ?
And our taxes did increase under Bush-- that deficit must be paid sooner or later.
Anyone who considers giving the wealthiest huge tax reductions and then driving up the government debt and calls it a "tax break" is insane.
Kerry tried to get the wealthiest to pay their share when he vited against the $87 billion for Iraq.
posted on July 13, 2004 01:58:30 PM newBush has spent more than that on Iraq and has given us record deficits.
More than than $734.6 Billion in ADDITIONAL spending is what kerry's proposing.
So our government only owes health care and schools to the Iraqi people?
They will be paying for their own health care out of their own oil profits. And yes, we have always done humanitarian work, like rebuilding, to help the countries we've fought with.
And our taxes did increase under Bush-- that deficit must be paid sooner or later.
No they didn't. All tax rates went down and many lower income people who paid taxes before don't pay any now. Many benefits went to help families...etc. And it will be paid for as our econony continues to grow... as it alway has.
Kerry tried to get the wealthiest to pay their share when he vited against the $87 billion for Iraq.
We all should pay for everything....not only those who pay at our highest tax rate. kerry says he supports our troops.....but voted AGAINST fund them....as did Edwards. Votes to sent them off to war....then won't fund them. Oh yea....that's in our troops best interests....NOT!!!
Kerry is in the working class' corner. LOL...yea...he's proved that by always voting for tax INCREASES and against tax CUTS. A real weird way of seeing he's in the working class' corner. Few economists/CPAs, etc would agree.
posted on July 13, 2004 02:25:34 PM newKerry tried to get the wealthiest to pay their share when he vited against the $87 billion for Iraq.
erry says he supports our troops.....but voted AGAINST fund them....as did Edwards. Votes to sent them off to war....then won't fund them. Oh yea....that's in our troops best interests....NOT!!!
Linda you need to get check your facts before believing everything Bush says in his ads:
The claims are misleading, as we've pointed out before in articles we posted on Feb. 26 and March 16. The Bush campaign bases its claim mainly on Kerry's votes against overall Pentagon money bills in 1990, 1995 and 1996, but these were not votes against specific weapons. And in fact, Kerry voted for Pentagon authorization bills in 16 of the 19 years he's been in the Senate. So even by the Bush campaign's twisted logic, Kerry should -- on balance -- be called a supporter of the "vital" weapons, more so than an opponent.
The claim that Kerry voted against body armor is based similarly on Kerry's vote last year against an $87 billion emergency supplemental appropriation bill to finance military operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It included $300 million for the latest, ceramic-plate type of body armor for troops who had been sent to war without it. The body-armor funds amounted to about 1/3 of one percent of the total
posted on July 13, 2004 03:06:06 PM new More than than $734.6 Billion in ADDITIONAL spending is what kerry's proposing.
That's over 5 years and still not near the deficit that Bush has run up.
They will be paying for their own health care out of their own oil profits. And yes, we have always done humanitarian work, like rebuilding, to help the countries we've fought with.
40 million without health insurance and we are in Iraq outfitting hospitals and schools. I'll bet we get repayed. Bush has been lobbying to have Iraq's debts forgiven.
No they didn't. All tax rates went down and many lower income people who paid taxes before don't pay any now. Many benefits went to help families...etc. And it will be paid for as our econony continues to grow... as it alway has.
You're blinded by your love of Bush. How is it a tax break when we run record deficits ? And the wealthiest 2% got hundreds of thousands in tax give-aways while some families got $600? And will be paid back as our economy continues to grow ? Any more of this Bush growth and we'll be in a full blown depression.
We all should pay for everything....not only those who pay at our highest tax rate. kerry says he supports our troops.....but voted AGAINST fund them....as did Edwards. Votes to sent them off to war....then won't fund them. Oh yea....that's in our troops best interests....NOT!!!
You're just mouthing another Bush lie. Even McCain said Kerry supported the troops. Kerry voted against the bill to force Bush to tax the rich to pay their fair share.
LOL...yea...he's proved that by always voting for tax INCREASES and against tax CUTS. A real weird way of seeing he's in the working class' corner. Few economists/CPAs, etc would agree.
Kerry has voted to increase taxes for the wealthiest 2% and lower taxes for the middle class. Every sane economist will agree that getting the money into the consumers hands will help the economy.
Unless you are a multi-millionaire Linda, you're on a fools errand supporting Bush's policies.
posted on July 13, 2004 04:00:18 PM new
logansdad - Your article addresses ONE item they needed - that was being disputed. There is no dispute on factcheck.org - nor anyother site - that kerry voted *against* this bill. His reasons don't matter...he says a protest vote....what matters is they wouldn't have had their needs met if left to kerry.
The fact is IF that bill had not had the support of those who DON'T believe in sending our troops off to war without funding their needs...they'd have been in a ton of trouble.
You can't change the FACTS that out of that $87B 2/3 of it was to be used directly for our troops needs. And kerry's vote is on record...AGAINST it. Thank heaven he and the other 11 [ELEVEN - out of 100] who voted against giving our troops support were so very, very few.
posted on July 13, 2004 04:21:30 PM new
The fact is IF that bill had not had the support of those who DON'T believe in sending our troops off to war without funding their needs...they'd have been in a ton of trouble.
That's BS and you know it. The fact is Bush underestimated everything about this war from the beginning. He keep asking for more and more money to cover his assets. Because has one vote against this war you are saying he does not support the troops. You are full of it Linda.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 13, 2004 04:41:29 PM newThat's over 5 years and still not near the deficit that Bush has run up.
That's also not counting that only provides insurance coverage for 1/2 of that 40M people now currently used as the uninsured. Then when he decides to be *fair* and give the other 1/2 the same benefits...fair and equal after all...he can't only insure 1/2 of them...we can DOUBLE those figures.
Another overlooked fact is that those numbers include children...it's not all adults. Most of those children and families who already have some form of government paid/sponsored health care. A very, very small percentage of those numbers don't have insurance. It's democrat expansion at it's best.
Then also included in those numbers, are those making between $75,000 - $100,000 a year who, like helen, don't WANT to pay what they regard as premiums that are too high. THEIR choice not to spend their own money in that area, but don't ask us who already pay our own to pay for theirs too, when they *CAN* afford their own quite easily.
40 million without health insurance and we are in Iraq outfitting hospitals and schools.
Again, our country has always done it that way. Are you complaining about all our OTHER billions we give in foreign aid to all those other countries when IT could be better used here too? No, just focusing on this aid because the dems are using it as a political issue. They'd only vote to spend more.
I'll bet we get repayed. Bush has been lobbying to have Iraq's debts forgiven.
First of all I didn't say we'd get repaid....I don't believe we will. Second yes, he's working to lower their debt to give their new economy a fighting chance to survive. If they don't get a break...they'll fail for sure.
You're blinded by your love of Bush.
I'm not blinded and it's not love of him. It's fully enjoying having a having a President with a backbone in office for a change....one with convictions he doesn't waver on - according to which group he's speaking to....and one who puts in politices that keep more of the money we earn in our OWN pockets, rather than giving it to the democratic party to spend how they see fit. Also seeing the GREAT job he's done turning the world-wide recession around and helping our economy grow at a much more rapid rate than ever before - even after two wars and all.
the wealthiest 2% got hundreds of thousands in tax give-aways while some families got $600?
As everyone is so fond of stating we vote our pocketbooks. Those who were paying the lowest rate...now don't pay Fed taxes. Familes had their children credits doubled....ALL tax rates were lowered. So ANYONE who pays taxes has benefitted.
Anyone can grab their 2003 tax books and see the tax rates are down. That's the 'proof' rather than a twisting of the numbers. ALL tax rates are down. And the highest rates, not that long ago were up to 70% under the dems. The highest rate now is 36%. A kerry administration will have them back up to 70% in no time flat. We can look to his *beginning* and *past* spending patterns to see that proof. That's a given.
And will be paid back as our economy continues to grow ? Any more of this Bush growth and we'll be in a full blown depression. You've been crying that tune for so long now....even as things have turned around and growth is at a 20 year high. When do you stop crying - the sky is falling?
You're just mouthing another Bush lie.
kerry's voting record is there for anyone who wants to see the truth. It's obvious many lefties don't want to see the truth...the facts..they'd rather just give lip service to a candidate who has voted against defense spending...voted against funding our troops....voted against funding our intelligence agencies....and then complains what a bad job everyone is doing. right....
Even McCain said Kerry supported the troops.
Easy to say when put on the spot...and while being asked to run under the democratic ticket. ...but the votes show a much different story - solid facts.
McCain has changed his position on other issues relating to kerry too. He calls him a friend now...but he's previously talked about his anger at kerry [and others who gave aid and comfort to our enemies] for his actions while McCain was a POW...being held captive while kerry's testimony was used against him and other POWs...who were being tortured.
you say: Every sane economist will agree that getting the money into the consumers hands will help the economy.
LOL - which is and has been *exactly* what Bush has said and done ....and exactly the opposite of what kerry's proposals would do....as noted in my above WSJ article. The use the 'class warfare' to convince the dems they're going to make those terrible high income earners [the productive ones] pay through the nose...but the reality is that won't happen. They've got their own protected. It will be, once again, the middle class to will foot the bill....AND pay much higher taxes.
Unless you are a multi-millionaire Linda, you're on a fools errand supporting Bush's policies.
I'm not....so that should explain that as a middle income person I HAVE seen more of my own money stay in my own pocket....I have seen my own tax rate go down...I do see my sons having less taken out of their paychecks...because they too have benefitted from the lowered tax rates and tax advantages that have been given to families like theirs. They're not millionairs either. And I don't want kerry taking that away from us.
Had I not seen that benefit...I too would be supporting a change.
---------------------
posted on July 13, 2004 04:50:11 PM new
logansdad - Because has one vote against this war you are saying he does not support the troops. You are full of it Linda.
No, it not just one vote....it's his whole voting record.... and that is available online for all who can deal with the *truth*...not political spin from either side. I've posted his US Senate voting record before. No one can 'spin' how he voted.
posted on July 13, 2004 04:55:54 PM new
Linda, please explain how you know how the government speant the $87 billion dollars. How do you know 2/3 of it went toward the troops. It said some went toward military operations and reconstruction effeorts. The article said 1/3 went toward body armor.
The rest of the money could have gone to rebuilding Iraq.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
LOL @ but do you think you're ready to face that Kerry just might win this thing?
