About Dean, who are contacting thir local chapters to ask about Denas action as governor and the answers they are getting are definitely not PRO Dean.
Dean actually never fixed the budget deficit in Vermont that he inherited in 1991. This was addressed by his predecessor, and the programs to get rid of the deficit FIRMLY in place when Dean took office.
However when Dean rolled back Richard Snellings temporary tax increases on the wealthy, deficits started returning and Dean began cutting. He protected Dr Dynsaur, but everyone else was to be screwed under Deans vision:
The state was in a fiscal crisis at the time, working its way out of the biggest budget deficit in its history. Then-Gov. Richard Snelling had pushed a series of temporary tax increases and budget cuts through the Legislature and Dean took up that austerity plan as his own.
To the anger of more liberal members of his own party, he insisted that the tax increases be rolled back on schedule and then went on to work for additional tax cuts later in his tenure.
By the same token, though, he also supported raising taxes — as long as it wasn’t the income tax — when school funding crises and other issues arose that required it.
Throughout, he held a tight rein on state spending, repeatedly clashing with the Democrats who controlled the Legislature for most of his years as governor.
Dean trimmed spending or held down increases in areas held dear by the liberals. More than once, Dean went to battle over whether individual welfare benefits should rise under automatic cost of living adjustments. Liberals were particularly incensed when he tried that tactic on a program serving the blind, disabled and elderly, which he did several times.
http://premium1.fosters.com/2003/news/may%5F03/may%5F19/news/reg%5Fvt0519a.aspNotice the wording, HELD DOWN INCREASES.
In 1995, Dean made statements about cutting back Medicare and Social Security Spending.
In June of 2003, on Meet the Press, he talked about HOLDING DOWN INCREASES, to Tim Russert:
Dean: $85,000, maybe you raise it to $100,000 or whatever the numbers are. We’ve got to look at the numbers to figure out what you do. You get the Social Security problem off the table first by fixing it and then not allowing the Congress to keep taking money out of the trust fund. The president’s financing his tax cuts by taking money out of the Social Security trust fund. That’s ridiculous—first. Secondly, what do you do about the budget? You restrain spending. You do not have to actually make cuts in things like Medicare or in things like Medicaid or even in Defense. What you have to do is restrain the increases in spending.
Russert: When the Republicans tried to limit the growth, the Democrats said that was an actual cut.
Dean: Well, they’re going to say what they’re going to say. All I...
Russert: You would be willing to limit the growth...
Dean: Absolutely.
Russert: ...in Defense, in Medicare and Social Security?
Dean: You have to do that. If you don’t go where the money is—Social Security, we’re going to fix differently. We’re not talking about Social Security. We’re talking about Medicare. We’re talking about Defense and we’re talking about all the other things the federal government does. But I want to put the tax cut back into that budget. They need it to balance the budget.
Russert: That’s raising taxes, though. Let’s be honest.
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.aspDeans philosophy on this issue has not changed one iota. There is simply no way to have increaing numbers of people on Medicare, Hold back spending, and keep the same level of service, and not increase premiums and co-payments. Dean will have to increase the cost to somone. In the past this is how he proposed to do it for Medicaid, and drug benefits to the elderly:
Governor’s Budget Cuts Medicaid Programs
Governor Howard Dean, in his eleventh and last budget address, cut several Medicaid programs including prescription drugs, dental care and vision services. Dean told lawmakers times a tough and sacrifices had to be made.
The Dean budget for FY 2003 is $891 million in state spending, one percent more than the state expects to spend this fiscal year but nearly 3% less than the budget passed last year ($916 million). Revenues this year are expected to be $50 million below budget. Dean wants to use the "Rainy Day" fund to cover some of the $50 million shortfall but does not want to tap that fund for FY 2003. Next year’s budget is based on revenue estimates of $893 million.
If passed as presented, Dean’s budget would:
Eliminate the VScript Expanded Program.
Reduce the Vermont Health Access Plan pharmacy benefit.
Increase the co-pay up to $750/year for medicines under both the VScript and VHAP pharmacy programs. (Those eligible now pay only a few dollars for each filled prescription).
Eliminate the Medicaid dentures, chiropractic and podiatry programs.
Reduce the adult dental programs (cover pain and suffering only, not preventative care).
Add a 50% co-pay to adult vision programs.
Add a $250 co-pay per admission to VHAP inpatient hospital benefit.
Reduce the hospital outpatient payment by 10%.
Establish a hospital outpatient co-pay of $25.
These cuts would save about $27 million, $11 million in state money. Few advocates for the elderly are happy with the budget and have vowed to restore the money lost to these programs. A coalition of over a dozen advocacy groups held a rally and press conference at the Capitol building to denounce the budget cuts.
http://vnavt.com/vahhavoicewinter2002.htmThis is Denas historry, and in his 1995 and 2003 speeches reflect that his philosophy will simply result in raising costs to those who are least able to afford it, those on fixed incomes.
He did it before, and past behavior is the BEST and ONLY indicator of future performance.
Anyone older than fifty who supports Dean simply is supporting somone who does not have their best interests at heart, but the interests of the large health care industries and the pharmaceutical industries.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore