Democrat slams party on tax relief - Georgia's Zell Miller warns 'voters are going to skin us alive' in 2002

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Democrat slams party for stance on tax relief

By Donald Lambro THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Democratic Sen. Zell Miller sharply criticized his party's political leaders yesterday, warning that they were making "a terrible mistake" with their class-warfare attacks against President Bush's tax-cut plan. Mr. Miller, the only Democrat thus far to embrace Mr. Bush's tax cut plans, said that if his party continues to play polarizing politics on the tax-cut issue "the voters are going to skin us alive" in the 2002 midterm elections. The Georgia senator said he did not like the tactics being used by House and Senate Democratic leaders to discredit Mr. Bush's tax-cut proposals. He also denounced the language being used by Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe as "over the top." "I think the Democratic Party could not have made a worse choice in choosing Terry McAuliffe as chairman of the DNC. He stands in the shade of Bill Clinton," Mr. Miller said in an interview with The Washington Times. Mr. Miller said he was particularly disturbed by the harshness of Mr. McAuliffe's rhetoric. The DNC chairman has accused Mr. Bush of pushing a "radical right-wing agenda" and continues to insist that Al Gore won the election and that "the wrong man is sitting in the White House today." "I listened to him the day he made his speech accepting the chairmanship, and to me it just sounded like fingernails just scraping across a blackboard," he said. "That kind of language is just over the top, and it goes against what most Americans want from us right now. They want us to solve these problems and quick. And election year in and election year out we're talking about the same . . . things that are used as political fodder. I'm talking about the Democrats," he said. Mr. Miller also had harsh words for Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, who have repeatedly attacked Mr. Bush's plan to cut income-tax rates across the board as a giveaway to the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class. "I hate this class-warfare talk. I think the Democrats are making a terrible mistake and don't serve the people very well by engaging in it," he said. "It's bad politics. Most of the poor that I know don't have this class envy. They have this desire to move up in the world and into higher income brackets," he said. "I think the Democrats are making a terrible mistake by being against a tax cut. I know that they are saying they want tax cuts and want to make it more fair and everything, but their body language and what Joe Sixpack hears out there in the Kmart parking lot is that they're against giving him a tax cut," he said. "If we go back in 2002 with this same old [class-warfare] mantra, the voters are going to skin us alive," Mr. Miller said. "I don't like it." Mr. Daschle and Mr. Gephardt have denounced Mr. Bush's tax-cut plan, saying it would result in a return of deficit spending, would provide little if any tax cuts for people in the bottom brackets and do nothing to pay down the debt. But Mr. Miller rejected their arguments as political hype and distortions, saying: "I've heard all this before from the propeller heads when I was cutting taxes in my state as governor. I just do not believe all this doomsday talk. Figures don't lie, but liars do figure," he said. After Mr. Bush's address to Congress Tuesday night, Mr. Miller said he had the feeling that the voters think "that this president is reaching out and trying to solve problems." "And it looks like the Democrats are not reaching back like they should. And I think that's bad for the country and bad for politics," he said. Mr. Miller said it was possible that Mr. Bush could obtain more support from Democrats for his tax-cut plan if he raised his 33 percent top tax-rate bracket or if he modified the estate-tax repeal. "Those might be some things that would bring people on board. I'm not advocating that. I like it just the way it is, and I think it can be passed pretty much like it is," he said. Mr. Miller said he was set against the Democratic idea of adding a "trigger" provision in the tax cut in the event that surplus revenues declined or disappeared entirely. "One of the things that you do by cutting taxes is that you let taxpayers know that they are going to get a certain amount and they can make those kinds of plans" such as future purchases or investments, he said. "But if you put a trigger on it, they assume that it's just not going to happen," he said. However, he said he was pleased that Democrats "have moved away from talking about targeted tax cuts." "Anytime Joe Sixpack heard about targeted tax cuts, he thought you were talking about targeting somebody else," he said. When it was announced at the beginning of Mr. Bush's first week as president that Mr. Miller was holding a news conference with Sen. Phil Gramm, Texas Republican, to co-sponsor the Bush tax-cut plan, it triggered speculation that he was going to announce a switch in parties. "I was knocked off my feet," Mr. Miller said at the time about the rumors, adding that he had no intention of changing parties.

Democrat slams party on tax relief - Georgia's Zell Miller warns 'voters are going to skin us alive' in 2002

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), March 01, 2001

Answers

Clinton raised the higher end tax rate from 31% to 39%. Bush wants to push it back to 33%. Why do the democrats want to continue to punish the upper salary end? I just don't understand.

I heard an interview with a dem congressman (can't remember who) who insisted that the rich are not the workers in America. I don't get it. It seems that the sentiment is that the rich just sit around on their butts all day. How does one speculate that they became rich? My guess is that they worked hard, had a smart idea and knew how to run with it.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 01, 2001.


...unless they happened to be Ted Kennedy.

-- unless.... (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), March 01, 2001.

True wealth is inherited, not created.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 01, 2001.

Tarz--

Are you being ironic or serious? If the latter, I couldn't disagree more.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 01, 2001.


Let's see Ben and Jerry's, Microsoft, Land's End, MCI, Chilli's, Celestial Seasonings, Wine coolers. I could go on and on naming the list of companies that started in my life time. They had a good idea and turned it into reality, making jobs for millions of Americans along the way. Gates alone turned quite a few people into billionaires and even hundreds more into millionaires. I still don't get why the dems think they sit around all day on their butts.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 01, 2001.


Wealth is a fixed pile of "stuff". It is the responsibility of a just government to insure fair distribution of this "stuff". (after taking our cut off the top).Otherwise, the strongest will acquire all the "stuff".

-- (LeonTrotsky@Tienenman.Square), March 01, 2001.

Maria, if you're talking about the original Bartles and Jaymes wine coolers, those are part of the Gallo wine family. Hardly a company started "in your lifetime."

Just keeping you honest.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), March 01, 2001.


Georgia, Going back into my memory banks Bartles and James bought the original company around 1978 (or so), just before their popular commercials, "Thank you for your support". The original company (can't remember the name) started with a few thousand bucks to make and bottle the stuff and after its huge success, sold it to B&J for around $4M. Not bad huh?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 01, 2001.

Maria--

We must also list Apple/Steve Jobs & Steve Wozniak. What a wonderfully ironic name -JOBS.

From what I have heard, Steve Jobs is an egotistical SOB. His counterpart in the USSR, Stefan Jobsky, would never have developed the PC because of vested interests in mainframe computing and because new ideas only get sponsored in bureaucracies if you are connected or at least know who to blow. Jobsky wouldn't kiss butt, he was a trouble maker. He recently retired, broken and broke from his career in maintenance at Chernobyl.

Apple computer created "wealth" out of thin air becuse two nerds were free to tinker in their garage and others were free to risk venture capital in theit nutty ideas. Jobs created jobs.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 01, 2001.


Zel Miller is more a Republican than a Democrat. In fact, I'm thinking that he wasn't even elected. He was appointed because somebody died. [I could be wrong about that.] He's ALSO not up for "renewal" in 2002. Of THAT, I'm certain, because he was one of the 8 Democrats who voted for Ashcroft, and NONE of the 8 are up in 2002.

He could be reflective of his constituency, in which case, it's my opinion that he's doing what he should do, but he's [from everything *I've* seen] not held in high esteem by the Democratic Party overall.

The tax cut doesn't seem to be important to Democratic voters, so the only one who might suffer from the unwillingness to accept the plan as proposed seems to be Zel, but that might not happen until 2004.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 01, 2001.



Well why don't we just kill the Catholics if that is how you really feel.

-- Jam Bob (nada@nope.not), March 02, 2001.

off

-- (clean@up.crew), March 02, 2001.

Miller has been repeatedly elected by Georgia voters. He is a Democrat, just not a Liberal Democrat. There are such things, you know. I give him credit for standing up to the bullying of his party. He may get tired of it one day and switch over to the Republican side, but the Dem label sits better with Georgia voters.

Zell Miller's Previous Political Work:

Mayor of Young Harris, 1959 Georgia State Senate, 1960 - 1964 State Director of Probations, 1965 - 1967 Assistant Director of Corrections, 1967 - 1969 Executive Secretary to the Governor, 1969 - 1970 Executive Director, Democratic Party of Georgia, 1971 - 1973 Lieutenant governor, 1974 - 1990 Governor, 1990 - 1998. Appointed to the Senate by Gov. Roy Barnes July 24, 2000, to replace the late Sen. Paul Coverdell

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 02, 2001.


Zell Miller will stand for reelection in 2004, which is when Paul Coverdell would have stood for reelection if he had not died in office. Zell Miller was duly appointed as US Senator by Georgia Governor Roy Barnes.

I strongly suspect that Zell will win reelection if he runs, which he may not. He had to be coaxed out of retirement to take the Senate seat, and publicly said that he really didn't want it, but felt it was his duty to step up to the plate, as it were. I'd personally like to see him run for reelection, but I give it a 50-50 chance.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (zell.is@good.man.com), March 02, 2001.


Regardless of how well liked Zel may be in Georgia, Rich, he's still a junior Senator in Washington. Personally, I think Senators in Washington should act on the desires of the constituents who voted for them, and he may very well be reflecting the desires of the constituents who voted for the guy he replaced. However, he's trying to speak for the National Democratic Party in this particular case, as well as trying to imply that the constituents of the other 49 Democratic senators share the opinion of the folks HE represents, if not his opinion alone.

Local politics differ considerably from Washington politics. The constituents of the various Senators are much more diverse. Here in Texas, the legislature has a majority of Democrats, but SOME of these Democrats agreed with the plans of Bush while he was Governor, and some of them didn't. When he mentioned "working across the aisle", he referred to the Democrats who agreed with his plans in the first place.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 02, 2001.



I interpret his remarks as not speaking for his party, but instead voicing his own views. I won't pretend to know what Georgians want.

It's good to see a politician not spewing party rhetoric for a change. I like it. I want to see more of it.

Lastly, US Senators should look more to the good of the country as opposed to their home states, IMO. Leaders capable and willing to look at the "big picture" are all too rare.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 02, 2001.


I realize that because I'm not a party hack "type" my views regarding party politics are pretty much spit in the wind. I don't respect people who make parrotting organizational pap a career. Compromise is one thing. Quashing original thought - in oneself and those around you - for the sake of unity is unhealthy and counter-productive, for this type of "group-think" breeds tunnel vision, trains people to NOT look to develop leadership skills but instead fit into existent molds, thereby insuring subpar output, IMO.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 02, 2001.

Rich:

I would agree with you on ONE thing: I've never understood the "yellow dog" philosophy, wherein one stood by the party at any expense, or even voted straight ticket for one party or another. However, if Zel is going to vote strictly in line with issues presented by the Republican party, he might as well BE a Republican. The same holds true of the Democrats in our legislature here in Texas. If one agreed with everything Bush wanted [and even supported him in the Presidential campaign], why stick with the Democratic label?

On a US Senator looking at the "whole picture", I guess I disagree. MY picture and YOUR picture may be completely different. Who sees the CORRECT picture? We vote for these guys based on the platforms they present that represent OUR views. For ME, it's never been a PARTY thing, as I evaluated each candidate individually and voted for the ones closest in line with my thinking. It's unfair to the constituents to change midstream. If enough people feel unrepresented, the representative is replaced at the next election. This is, IMO, how the process SHOULD work.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 02, 2001.


A US Senator serves a six-year term, a US Representative two-years. The Senate is an elite body, the House more "Joe Six-pack". My flight of fancy tells me it was set up this way to allow senators breathing room, a separation from the demands of the electorate. Hell, the voting public didn't get to elect their own senators until early in this century, if I'm not mistaken.

I look for leadership from the Senate and sucking up to constituents from the House.

Wish I had more time to spend on this right now. This is such a key discussion.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), March 02, 2001.


Rich:

I don't want to belabor this topic, but I think the 6-year term versus the 2-year term is due to the diversity of the constituents represented less than a goal of encouraging lone-ranger thinking. A Senator represents the constituents of an entire state, while a Representative represents the constituents of only one district in a state.

It's surely easier for a Senator to piss off constituents in a particular district by one or two votes in the Senate. That same vote may sit well with constituents in other districts and the Senator must consider his constituency overall and not pander to one particular group to the exclusion of others.

It makes sense that Senators are held in higher esteem, because they must make harder decisions before voting on issues. Some states are more homogeneous than others and the Senators don't have to think hard on how their constituents might react to a vote. Other states [New York, for example], have a mix of constituents that precludes a given vote from being acceptable by all. At the end of six years, the constituents weigh the votes by their Senator and [depending on other candidates who may be better or worse at representing them] decide whether to re-elect or choose someone else.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 02, 2001.


Anita --

"Regardless of how well liked Zel may be in Georgia, Rich, he's still a junior Senator in Washington. Personally, I think Senators in Washington should act on the desires of the constituents who voted for them, and he may very well be reflecting the desires of the constituents who voted for the guy he replaced. However, he's trying to speak for the National Democratic Party in this particular case, as well as trying to imply that the constituents of the other 49 Democratic senators share the opinion of the folks HE represents, if not his opinion alone."

I don't see this at all. Knowing how Zell Miller operates, if anything, he will say what HE thinks, not what his party leadership thinks. He crosses party and ideological lines on a regular basis, and votes his conscience. It certainly must satisfy the people of Georgia, because we elected him Governor twice in a row, with very healthy margins. Zell Miller could get elected for anything in Georgia, even Miss Georgia, if he chose to run for that.

He stepped down when his last term ended in 1998 and went into retirement, where he stayed until Senator Paul Coverdell's death last summer. There was a hue and cry among Georgia conservatives when (Democratic) Governor Roy Barnes appointed Democrat Zell to succeed Republican Paul, but the fact of the matter is that there just wasn't anyone else qualified enough or skilled enough to do the job. Newt wouldn't have been suitable because of the crap hanging around him lately, and Georgia's representatives just don't carry the weight appropriate to the office. I'm sure that Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney and John Lewis all would have loved to have been appointed, but there's a rather strong stench around each of them, too.

The scuttlebutt around the Capitol Dome in Atlanta (under that ugly new flag) is that Zell was *begged* to come out of retirement and take the Senate seat by the national Democratic leadership. I have heard from more than one source that he was the top choice for Secretary of Education in a Gore Cabinet, but obviously that didn't happen. In any event, Zell stepped in to help the Dems out in a tight spot (even though he didn't want to). I imagine that Zell told the Dem leadership that since he was coming out of retirement, he would serve the people of Georgia, and not the party brass, and they could take it or leave it. Zell's position on this matter would seem to agree with that.

Zell Miller will say what he thinks, and party politics be damned. I like that, and I'll vote for the man in 2004, if he decides to stand for reelection.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (Zell.is@good.man.com), March 02, 2001.


Anita:

By your reasoning, the President (who is answerable to everyone in *every* state) should serve for life, just like a Supreme Court Justice.

I wouldn't call the intent "lone-ranger" thinking, so much as "longer- range" thinking. The founders knew perfectly well that the people are like children, wanting everything *right now*, making mutually exclusive demands, stampeding toward the fad of the week, voting emotions and personalities, etc. Indeed, the indirect election of the president and (at one time) indirect election of senators reflected this same fear -- that "instant democracy" was dangerous.

On the other hand, very long terms run the opposite risk -- that the legislature will not sufficiently factor in public concerns to their deliberations. So the goal was to build a setup that remained sensitive to the peoples' needs, without being whiplashed around by the peoples' whims. Having 2-year terms for the House and 6 year terms for the Senate, and then having 1/3 of the Senators stand for re-election every 2 years, was intended as a blend and a compromise.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 02, 2001.


I imagine that Zell told the Dem leadership that since he was coming out of retirement, he would serve the people of Georgia, and not the party brass, and they could take it or leave it. Zell's position on this matter would seem to agree with that.

If he's representing his constituents, he's doing the right thing, IMO. However, he's NOT up for re-election in 2002 and he does NOT represent people in other states, so his statement regarding voters are going to skin us alive in 2002 not only didn't apply to HIM as part of US, but didn't represent the overwhelming Democratic populace who see the tax cut as insignificant compared to other things they'd rather see implemented.

Flint: If I thought that my logic reflected an opinion that a president should be appointed for life, I'd commit myself. [Which may not be a bad idea anyway.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 02, 2001.


I missed a VERY important point in what the Georgia Bidness man said. Zel [Zell?] was appointed to replace a Republican. This indicates to me that his constituents VOTED for a Republican and explains completely why he's sided with the Republicans on every issue. With this information in hand, I would like to repeat what I'd said previously, which was "If he's representing the views of the constituents who voted for the person he was appointed to replace [or something like that], he's doing the right thing, IMO.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 02, 2001.

Anita, you are making no sense whatsoever. Zell Miller was appointed by a *Democrat,* and was coaxed out of retirement by the *Democratic* leadership. Why then, would he owe any allegiance to the GOP? And why would he be siding "with the Republicans on every issue?"

I can't believe that you see members of the two major parties as so two-dimensional as to suggest that only a GOP can replace a GOP and so forth. Zell Miller was appointed to replace Paul Coverdell (as I said) because he was the only political animal in my state with the weight to take on the position. No other politician in the state -- OF EITHER PARTY -- could have done it. Many are politically weak, many are hopelessly partisan, and some (as I indicated) have too much smelly political baggage. Zell Miller was the only reasonable choice.

Further, Anita, if you think that Zell has no right to speak about the 2002 elections if he's not going to stand for election there, then I'm agog at you. Any politician can speak about any election he pleases. I think that Zell said what he did because he believes that the electorate WILL punish the Dems in 2002 if they oppose the Bush tax cut now. Given how closely divided Congress is right now, I think Zell is saying "fighting this battle now will cause us to lose a bigger battle in 2002." Whether he's standing for reelection in three days or three years is immaterial. Zell Miller's a Democrat, and he's speaking his mind to other Democrats.

Further, Anita, in this passage, you make the same logical fallacy you accuse Zell Miller of making:

"but didn't represent the overwhelming Democratic populace who see the tax cut as insignificant compared to other things they'd rather see implemented."

You suggest that Zell Miller is speaking out of turn and speaking for people he does not represent. I submit that if that is true, then you are doing the same. For my part, I think that both you and Zell are expressing your opinions on an issue, and that you, Anita, are simply a bit overexcited about this. However, you do seem to be second-guessing the people of Georgia. Paul Coverdell was a very popular Senator here in Georgia, but Zell Miller was also a very popular Governor. The people of Georgia elected BOTH Republican Paul Coverdell AND Democrat Zell Miller, more than once each. There is nothing peculiar to the people of Georgia that would make *them* cross party lines in that way. Surely Zell Miller is not required to confine his thinking and speaking to one end of the political spectrum.

Anita, I mean no disrespect, but you need to look a lot more closely at the man and his actions in office before you start in on him. I'm not a resident of Texas, so I defer to your knowledge of Mr. Bush. But at the same time, you're not a resident of Georgia, and so perhaps your knowledge of Mr. Miller is lacking. Please give that some thought.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (Zell.is@good.man.com), March 03, 2001.


Georgia Bidnessman:

I accept your chastisement and appreciate the grace in which it was offered.

It would be a full-time job to follow every Congresscritter in every state, but I do my best to keep my ear to the ground and listen to what folks have to say about each of them. I didn't know that Zell [finally spelling his name correctly] was encouraged by the National Democratic Party to come out of retirement until you mentioned it. I also didn't know that he was replacing a Republican until you mentioned it. I learn something new every day.

Zell's name has come up many times before in my travels, typically as a roll-over-and-play-dead Democrat who accommodates every Republican idea. The general theme that I see mentioned again and again is that the Democrats in Congress lack the spine to stand up for what their constituents want in favor of either Senatorial courtesy or the feeling that a new president should have a "honeymoon" period. Again, from what I've seen [heard], this is not sitting well with the folks who voted for these people. I'd even go so far as to say that I haven't seen folks this involved in the political scene in a VERY long while.

I've already said enough times that it's MY belief that a Senator or Representative should vote according to the wishes of his/her constituents. If he/she does not, the next election will put someone in that will. If Zell's constituents are predominantly Republican, which it would seem they are, I certainly wouldn't consider him a roll-over-and-play-dead Democrat who should be accused of being spineless, etc. In fact, everything you've said about the man leads me to believe that he has enough spine for THREE people. This is a good thing. Voters like candidates who speak up for what they think is right AND speak up for what they think their constituents think is right.

If what I said makes no sense, it's because my mind has incorporated the input from so many places that your input into Zell resulted in an "AHA!" that has to be digested and mixed with the rest. [at least that's my excuse at this time]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 03, 2001.


Anita --

I appreciate the conciliatiory words. You may find a lot to like about Zell Miller if you look closely at him. He wrote an autobiography some years ago; I can find out if it is still in print, if you like. I would even be willing to send you a copy of it, if I can find one.

I'm not sure if it is true in Texas, but in Georgia and Alabama (where I grew up), one used to have to be a Democrat in order to get elected to statewide office. Whether one ACTED like a Democrat or not was secondary. I can recall one Alabama gubernatorial election (I think it was 1986) in which the Democratic primary between Lt. Gov. Bill Baxley and Attorney General Don Siegelman (?) was more heated than the election itself. Surprisingly, however, Republican Guy Hunt, who had never held elective office or been to college, won that particular election after voters became disgusted with the battlin' Democrats.

To be sure, there were wails of anger in Georgia last year when Governor Barnes appointed Zell Miller to replace Paul Coverdell. More conservative Georgians saw it as an out-and-out theft of a Senate seat from the Republican Party, and said so. But legally, Governor Barnes was within his rights to appoint anyone he wanted, and I think he felt that Zell would do the best job and would be the most likely man to look out for all Georgians -- just like he did when he was governor.

One of Zell's achievements that I would like to point out is his unflagging support of the Georgia Lottery. It was put to a statewide referendum in 1992, and Zell campaigned HARD for it over the objections of state Republicans and church leaders. It passed by the thinnest of margins, 50.1% in favor to 49.9% opposed. In the eight years the Georgia Lottery has been in operation, over THREE BILLION DOLLARS have flowed to state schools, and now every Georgia public school student (even the ones living in "Deliverance" or Okefenokee country) has access to computers, distance learning, the Internet, and -- if they keep a "B" average -- $2000 from the state per year to apply to their college expenses. And that three billion dollars is gravy -- the state is obliged by law to provide full funding for education BEFORE the lottery money gets distributed. The management of the Georgia Lottery has been cited as an example for other states to follow, and prominent Georgians like Ray Charles, Elton John (yes, he's got a penthouse retreat in Atlanta) and James Brown have all done commercials for the lottery.

Whether one likes lotteries or hates them, one must admit, that money's done a lot of good for Georgia children. And Zell Miller saw to it that the money went exactly where it would do the most good. Democrat or Republican, he's my guy.

-- Georgia Bidnessman (Zell.is@good.man.com), March 04, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ