From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Vice Shrub won (NOT!)
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:57:05 GMT

In article <Bw4Hoq.K8E@news.udel.edu> roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:
>In article <1bhdhvINNdv@eagle.natinst.com> chrisb@natinst.com (Chris Bartz) writes:
>>In article <1bg24gINNsmh@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) writes:
>>>egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>>He also kept saying that Clinton wants to raise 150 billion in
>>taxes and Gore kept saying thats not true.  Gore could have explained
>>there plan much better than just saying "not true, not true".

Because if you dig deeper, Quayle is more on the mark than off the
mark.  Gore can only refute it successfully by coming up
with a reason why their health plan will be costless.
They can "pull a Clinton" and say "not true" because they have
never said they would raise that much in taxes. But they still
won't say how they will pay for it.

>The Clinton plan proposes 150 bil. in new programs, 104 bil. cuts 
>in old programs for a net tax increase of 46 bil. to be paid 
>by incomes of over $200,000 which have received more than their fair 
>share of tax breaks in the last 12 years.

It sounds like your numbers are different from the "Put
Government, er People, First" plan. I see only $44 billion
in savings, even in the out year.
 Most of these cuts are really
nicks of dubious merit.  From the plan: 
 
New Savings
 
Spending Cuts                   26.09   32.42    36.81   44.98
       
Entitlement Reform               0.6     1.0      1.0     1.8


Notice the paltry sum in the "entitlement reform" category.
He's doing *nothing* to deal with the biggest parts of the budget.

Others have added the PPF spending increases onto other promises he
has made, and get spending increases over $200 billion. But even in the
plan, he suggests program expansions without putting the costs
in the final breakdown. For example in the health care section:
" We'll provide more services to the elderly and the disabled by
expanding Medicare to include more long-term care. "
He doesn't show what the cost of this, or many other expansions
in programs would be.

Also, he does raise taxes other than on upper income people.
PPF proposes various business taxes as well.

>Quayle can't seem to distinguish programs from taxes, or maybe he doesn't 
>know how to subtract cuts from new programs.  

Uh, I think you too may be confused there, based on the $100 billion
in cuts comment.  Well, it's interesting, but the PPF plan also seems
to want to confuse taxes and spending to hide the word "taxes".
Consider their table, and note
that "tax fairness" (hikes on the rich) and "closing corporate
loopholes" (raising business taxes) are in the "savings" category.
These are tax increases folks:

New investments
                                1993    1994    1995     1996

Putting America to work         28.3    34.6     35.4    35.4
Rewarding work and families      3.5     5.5      6.5     7.0
Lifetime learning               10.1    14.25    17.27   21.7
Total                           41.9    54.35    59.17   64.1
 
New Savings
 
Spending Cuts                   26.09   32.42    36.81   44.98
Entitlement Reform               0.6     1.0      1.0     1.8
Tax Fairness                    19.8    22.7     23.9    25.3
Closing Corporate Loopholes     11.3    14.4     15.3    17.3
 
Total                           57.79   70.52    77.01   89.38


The table *could* have said "New Spending" and "New taxes",
but then Clinton/Gore are running away from that label.

Pat

Emmett Kilgiraff on Clinton:
"this's the guy who one week told Larry King he could balance the budget
in five years, and two weeks later releases an economic plan that doesn't
balance the budget, and reduces the deficit buy assuming high economic
growth."