Howard Dean, Unpasteurized Wall Street Journal By JOHN MCCLAUGHRY Campaigning for the Democratic nomination for president, Howard Dean frequently points to his record as Vermont's governor to indicate his fitness for the job. I served with Mr. Dean in the Senate, ran against him for the governor's office in 1992, and have watched him in action in the decade since. Now is a good time to re-examine his record. Vermont is a small and liberal state with a population equaling that of Monmouth County, New Jersey. It is also, as Peter Beinart of the New Republic recently observed, "ideologically extreme." Mr. Dean himself aptly remarked to a New Hampshire gathering on Aug. 22, "In Vermont, politics is much further to the left. A Vermont centrist is an American liberal right now." Vermonters do, however, place stock in balanced budgets and strong bond ratings. Gov. Dean can rightly claim that he signed budget bills that projected balanced budgets during his last nine fiscal years, after his predecessor's tax increases erased an initial inherited deficit. He can also point to channeling surpluses into the state's "rainy day funds" in the boom years of 1999-2001. On several occasions during those years he was forced to make some spending cuts. In his earlier years, he favored directing his department heads to reduce their spending. In later years, he became adept at fund raiding and cost shifting. On the former point, Jack Hoffman, the longtime liberal commentator for the Vermont Press Bureau, observed in 2002 that "Dean's proposal to squeeze the education fund looks less like an exercise of fiscal restraint and more like an old fashioned raid on the one account that's still healthy." More pernicious than the fund raiding was Mr. Dean's financing of his ambitious government health-care programs by shifting a large portion of the costs onto the providers -- hospitals, nursing homes, doctors and dentists. Forced to treat government-sponsored patients often at less than 50 cents on the dollar, hospitals shifted costs to patients covered by private insurance. (Many doctors and dentists opted out of the Medicaid program altogether.) This cost shift helped to send the cost of health-insurance premiums skyrocketing, causing more businesses and individuals to drop their coverage and go into the state program, thus stimulating a new round of cost shifting and higher premiums. Even so, the legislative joint fiscal office has projected a Medicaid deficit of $95 million by 2008. This mandating of popular benefits without raising taxes to pay for them is a prominent characteristic of Mr. Dean's fiscal record. On one occasion (1999) Mr. Dean did get the legislature to lower income-tax rates 4% across the board. But aside from that one instance, Mr. Dean gladly spent all he could take in. In Gov. Dean's early years, when he was still restricted by his predecessor's fiscal bailout program, he earned a respectable "B" on the Cato Institute's fiscal responsibility report card. By 2002 his ranking had dropped to "D." During his last eight years Mr. Dean signed into law increases in the sales and use, rooms, meals, liquor, cigarette, and electrical energy taxes. In 1997 he raised the corporate, telecommunications, bank franchise, and gasoline taxes. Dwarfing all of these was his approval of a state education finance "reform" built on a new 1.1% state real property tax. All of the 1997 tax rate increases were justified in the name of property tax relief for some Vermonters, but the relief is rapidly evaporating with ever increasing educational costs. Mr. Dean as government manager does not compute. Attuned to political implications, his style has been to intervene at critical points rather than devote time, effort, and political capital to creating efficient and predictable government. He used his influence to whisk favored applicants through Vermont's maddening tangle of environmental regulations, while ordinary small business people trying to open a convenience store could only take a ticket and wait. The prime example is Husky Injection Molding, a well-paying Canadian company looking for an American plant site. After convincing the company to put its plant in Milton, Vt., Mr. Dean created a special task force -- "Operation Big Dog" -- to get Husky its permits. It did so in record time, even though the site violated both the Milton town plan and the regional plan. Concurrently Mr. Dean asked the legislature to create a program of "economic progress" tax credits for businesses, to be awarded to applicant firms which had obtained Mr. Dean's personal approval. (The legislature complied, but removed this "Boss Tweed" provision.) Mr. Dean's leadership of his legislature has often been feeble. The two most important acts of his governorship were the educational finance "reform" of 1997 and the "civil unions" bill of 2000, both mandated by Vermont's ultra-liberal Supreme Court. Mr. Dean, now claiming credit for both, was largely AWOL on the issues. Sen. Jean Ankeny, a very liberal Democrat from Chittenden County, complained in 1997 that "during this legislative session, Democratic legislators have had very little help, let alone leadership from the governor. Indeed his biggest effort has been to constrain those charged with property tax reform by promising a veto if the income tax is used." During the red-hot civil unions debate in 2000, Mr. Dean caught early flak from his gay and lesbian supporters for observing that he was uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage. After that, Mr. Dean steered clear of the battle and eventually signed the bill "in the closet" to make sure there was no photo to follow him around in later political campaigns. Many Americans are asking what kind of a president Howard Dean would make. Based on his 11 years as governor of Vermont, a reasonable person could fairly conclude that he would not make a very good one. This verdict is not based on his views on particular issues. It is based on a review of his autocratic style, his lack of ability to deal with bureaucratic management and his overwhelming commitment to his own political ambitions rather than to any recognizable principle. He has run a brilliant pre-primary campaign. He is saying the things that energize the angry Left of his party. He can boast of executive experience and, at least superficially, some fiscal conservatism. But as chief executive of a multi-trillion dollar enterprise and leader of the most powerful nation in a dangerous world, I believe that most Vermonters who have watched him closely as governor would, after sober reflection, agree that as president Howard Dean would be far, far, over his head. Mr. McClaughry, a former Vermont state senator, runs the free market Ethan Allen Institute in Concord, Vt.
As a Vermont resident, I respectfully disagree. Dean's handling of economic issues has left Vermont very stable in the current fiscal crunch. While virtually every other state in the country (Texas included) is trying to overcome multi-billion dollar shortfalls, Vermont is comfortably in the black.
Read the article. Dean has avoided a budget deficit by raping and pillaging the tax payers, screwing over insurance premium payers, hospitals, doctors, dentists, raiding education funds and adhering to a Tammany Hall style of corporate favoritism at the expense of Vermont-owned companies.
T_J, you make me laugh when you assert that Howard Dean is unqualified to be President of the United States yet Orlando Sanchez is supremely qualified to be Mayor of Houston. Using your convoluted logic, you more than likely believe that David Carr is unqualified to be starting quarterback for the Houston Texans yet Gregg Zaun is.
It's not just me that's asserting it. Basically everybody except the far left wing of the liberals believes it to be true. This article sheds a lot of light on Dean's filthy record.
Um, I pay LESS taxes here than I did in Texas. The sales tax rate is also much lower (5.25 percent). I use private health insurance -- I pay $40/month, and my premiums are $150. But if I couldn't afford that (or was unemployed), the state offers health coverage for about $100/month. In Texas, I was paying $350/month, with a $250 premium. Education funds (locally) have increased. My wife is a teacher, and state funds have increased marginally. But federal funds have decreased dramatically because Bush refuses to allocate funding for his No Child Left Behind program. But I do agree with you on Dean's corporate favoritism. He offered IBM the moon (tax abatements, etc.), and they still left for Mexico.
How much do you pay in *State Income Taxes*? Oops, I guess you must have forgotten about that one. ...according to the article, rates are rising because of Dean's reckless policies, and doctors, hospitals, and dentists are forced to foot the bill. Someone is paying for Dean's irresponsibility -- and it's the healthcare professionals and insurance payers. Do not be misled. Well I should hope so, considering how Dean has raped and pillaged the tax payers. Just think how much *more* educational funding could have increased (if it has that is -- you offered no proof) if Dean had not raided the educational funds to balance his budget. Yes, it's utterly despicable.
It doesn't get into his foreign policy, but in one of his interviews this weekend, he said the UN should have taken out Iraq, not the US. Yeah, that powerful UN military could have done the job.
As an aside, I'm glad you posted this, GreenVegan. This is a great reason why all Texans should be voting "YES" on Proposition 12 on September 13. Let's help stop frivolous lawsuits which are forcing doctors to flee Texas. Let's put an end to trial lawyers ruining our healthcare system.
You need a better paying job. http://dab.nfc.usda.gov/pubs/docs/taxformulas/formulas/statecitycounty/taxvt/taxvt.html
I'm so torn on this issue...and not because I'm a trial lawyer who benefits from this stuff...I don't do any med-mal stuff at all. I just am not certain that limiting damages inflicts serious enough punishment to serve as real deterrerant...particularly given the texas medical board's apparent reluctance to govern itself with any force. At the same time, I understand all the concerns that TJ speaks of.
Dude, you don't have to tell me! My wife and I make a comfortable living, but making six digits is always better than making five.
Only non-economic damages would be limited. You could still get a $10,000,000,000 settlement through economic damages. At a hearing I attended last week, they said that statistics have shown that awards to plaintiffs have been higher in states *with* caps on non-economic damages as opposed to states without these caps. Deterrance should not be an issue here. Without a limit on skyrocketing med-mal insurance premiums, there will be no doctors left to deter.
If awards have been higher in states with caps, then what the hell is the point? We'll be making the problem worse.
You have mistakenly applied a causal link to caps and payouts. The point here is that deterrance still exists with caps through the form of lawsuit and payouts. The point is that caps do not handcuff a jury and prevent them from awarding economic damages that they consider to be just. Let's end the "litigation lottery" and allow doctors to earn living wages.
TJ --thanks for the information...it's been a while since I looked at the language on that proposition.
The GOP and their minions are after Dean because he's raising money. A Bush victory is predicated on having scads more money than the Democrat, especially between the end of the primaries and the conventions. Anything that threatens the GOP dominance of that timeframe scares the beejeesus (sp?) out of Rove. It looks like Dean has the capacity to forgo the matching funds and raise funds at such a clip so as to at least diminish Bush's advantage. I still think they will hold their ammo until late in the process, but at the rate he's raising money, they may have to attack sooner and they'll have to do better than the WSJ piece posted here. The problem with this line of attack is that any decent political operative could turn it back on Bush with ease. Take this paragraph for instance: "Mr. Dean as government manager does not compute. Attuned to political implications, his style has been to intervene at critical points rather than devote time, effort, and political capital to creating efficient and predictable government. He used his influence to whisk favored applicants through Vermont's maddening tangle of environmental regulations, while ordinary small business people trying to open a convenience store could only take a ticket and wait." Or even these two. If this kind of thing came up in a debate it would be a curve ball lined straight back to the pitcher's face: "Many Americans are asking what kind of a president Howard Dean would make. Based on his 11 years as governor of Vermont, a reasonable person could fairly conclude that he would not make a very good one. This verdict is not based on his views on particular issues. It is based on a review of his autocratic style, his lack of ability to deal with bureaucratic management and his overwhelming commitment to his own political ambitions rather than to any recognizable principle. He has run a brilliant pre-primary campaign. He is saying the things that energize the angry Left of his party. He can boast of executive experience and, at least superficially, some fiscal conservatism. But as chief executive of a multi-trillion dollar enterprise and leader of the most powerful nation in a dangerous world, I believe that most Vermonters who have watched him closely as governor would, after sober reflection, agree that as president Howard Dean would be far, far, over his head." And by the way did anyone notice that the author of this piece is a political opponent of Dean's who got spanked in the 1992 Governor's race? Sounds like a bunch of sour grapes to me, though I wonder if we'll have a "Vermont Project" taking shape soon. Here's an article on Dean's fundraising... _________________ Dean to Top $10 Million for Quarter Democratic Candidate Might Forgo Public Financing By Jim VandeHei Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, August 27, 2003; Page A03 Former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who is considering becoming the first Democrat to forgo public financing for a presidential campaign, will raise at least $10.3 million this quarter, his campaign manager, Joe Trippi, said yesterday. Dean led the eight other candidates for the Democratic nomination by raising $7.6 million in the second quarter, and there has been a huge surge in small-dollar contributions to his campaign over the Internet and from more traditional, meet-and-greet fundraising events, Trippi said. Dean is virtually certain to win the money race -- an important measure of a candidate's popularity inside the party -- this quarter, too, according to rival campaigns. The third quarter will end Sept. 30. But he is also spending money faster than any other candidate. Trippi said Dean will spend $1 million on new ads in key early primary states, including Wisconsin, New Mexico and Washington. By running ads so early in the process, Dean is hoping to build on the buzz surrounding his campaign and generate more money and supporters before rival campaigns get rolling. The other candidates are mostly holding back until after Labor Day, the unofficial start to the heavy campaigning season. Donna Brazile, who managed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000, said Dean's "momentum won't slow until Dean makes a mistake and his crowd decides there's something else better out there." The physician-turned-politician raised nearly $1 million this past weekend, as thousands of people flocked to rallies in Falls Church and several other cities around the country. If Dean tops $10 million in contributions, which his rivals expect him to do easily, he would become the second Democrat to hit that mark in the year before a presidential election. President Bill Clinton did it in 1995, when he was running for reelection. Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass) and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), who many leading Democrats consider Dean's toughest challengers for the nomination, will not come close to matching Dean this quarter, according to their campaign aides. "We're not going to raise that -- that's for sure," said Steve Elmendorf, a top Gephardt adviser. But, "at the end of the day, money isn't everything." Jim Jordan, Kerry's campaign manager, said Dean's fundraising has been an "impressive" feat his candidate cannot match. "We won't hit $10 million this quarter, and we don't need to." The reason, Jordan said: Democratic candidates can spend only $45 million in the primaries, including the federal matching funds, unless they operate outside the traditional campaign finance system. Candidates for president who agree to curb spending receive federal matching funds for the first $250 of every individual contribution they take in. This is precisely how all campaigns operated until George W. Bush opted out of the system in 1999 on his way to shattering all fundraising and spending records. Bush is opting out of the system again for his reelection campaign. Dean might do the same. Jordan said voters would be "distressed" if Dean broke his earlier pledge to abide by the spending limits for "purely political reasons." But most Democrats do not think Dean would pay a political price for doing what Bush is doing: seeking to raise as much money as he can. Trippi said the decision will not be made anytime soon. "It's certainly something you have to think about," Elmendorf said. "At some point, the match becomes less important than what you get by going outside of the system. This assumes [Dean] remains hot." Dean, who has raised most of his money in chunks smaller than $100, might be perfectly positioned to make the leap, said Brazile, because he can go back to small donors time and again until they hit the legal maximum of $2,000 per donor. At that point, other candidates will likely drop out, and he can go after their donors.
