From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: ==> Rhetoric Vs. Reality--The First Debate
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:31:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.064021.7914@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> shackeld@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (david m shackelford ) writes:
>In article <92285.222116U56503@uicvm.uic.edu> U56503@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>                         THE MISERY INDEX
>>
>> RHETORIC: George Bush said "...the misery index went right through
>> the roof."
>1.  A misery index of ~10 is only 50% of its peak value during the
>Carter recession.  Historically, a rate of 10% is actually very
>good.

Actually, at the end of Carter's term it over 20, far above the level
today.

>>                        CLINTON TAX PACKAGE
>>
>> RHETORIC: George Bush said: "Taxing people over $200,000 will not
>> raise $150 billion."

Clinton wants to raise the tax rate on the "top 2%" *not over $200,000*
(Clinton is not telling the truth on this when he says he won't
raise taxes on those making less than 200,000 - his own plan has
the following:
Increase rates on top 2%,      
         raise AMT, surtax on      
         millionaires              17.8     20.5     21.6     23.0

Remember, when we cut the tax rate on the wealthy in the 1980s, their
share of taxes increased.  Clinton wants to reverse this virtuous
cycle of tax reduction and increased welath creation by increasing
tax rates again. When he does, the rich will hide their taxable wealth
back in tax shelters and marginally-productive investments, and hide
their slaries in perqs and benefits, and their share of taxable income
will fall. Along with it, revenues will fall.

He won't raise $20 billion. The WSJ estimated he would raise about
$200 million, and hurt the economy in the process.

>This exposes the problem with Clinton's tax proposal.  Clinton
>doesn't tell us where the rest of the money is coming from.  He
>tries to say that the only effect will be on people making over
>$200,000 -- this is manifestly false.

Right on. As Bush said, it's the old "soak the rich" bait and switch.
"rich" will be redefined as $60,000. 

>> REALITY: This charge is based on the false assumption that the only
>> increase in revenue comes from raising the individual income tax
>> rate.
>
>Clinton allows this false assumption to continue because he doesn't
>want people to know where the rest of the money is coming from.
>
>         In fact, the Clinton plan raises billions from other sources,
>> including $58 billion from closing corporate tax loopholes.

Again ... his tax rate hikes will not deliver the revenues he claims.

His total claimed take in 1996 is $89 billion - that's not a loophole,
that's a big chunk of money. (And this doesn't even include the
"pay or play" payroll tax.)

>Increasing corporate taxes has an indirect effect on workers wages.
>This indirect effect (reduction due to increased corporate expenses)
>is EQUIVALENT to raising the individuals' taxes.

Right again. Clinton's tax increase plan is a disaster waiting to
happen. It will leave the economy poorer and the deficit higher,
especially if he follows through on his planned spending increases.

Pat
	Bill Clinton: the Status-quo candidate
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush