Bob Dole: A Race To The Top Essay, Research Paper

Bob Dole: A Race to the Top

People understand they can’t get all these tax cuts, protect their

favorite programs, and balance the budget,” says Susan Tanaka speaking on the

promises made by presidential candidate Bob Dole to the American public (Gibbs

1996). Bob Dole proposed his tax cut package on Aug. 5, 1996 hoping to entice

the public into voting for him in the 1996 presidential elections. Dole focuses

his proposal towards social conservatives and supply siders believing he will

give them their link to growth-oriented tax cuts which will amount to 551

billion dollars over the next six years (Rubin 1996). So how does Bob Dole plan

to make all these things happen without remaining in office for at least 12

years? He does not, it is merely an impossible act in a desperate attempt to

get himself elected.

As a tradition, the “Grand old Party” has always benefited the rich more

than the middle and working class people of America. Bob Dole promises a plan

which will avoid business tax cuts and combine a marginal rate cut with a $500

per child tax credit, targeted towards low and middle income tax payers. The

result, a plan that while still benefiting the rich more than the middle class,

more evenly distributes between all income groups (Duffy 1996). Under Dole’s

tax cut plan, a family of four with an annual income of 31,000 would see their

tax bill drop from $2,000 to $800, a difference of $1,200. “The way the tax

cut was packaged shows that they were still sensitive to the old anti-Reagan

argument that tax cuts just benefit the rich and they tried to show that their

plan would benefit everybody,” remarked Rick Grafmeyer, a tax partner at Earnest

& Young, a national accounting firm (Barnes, 1996, 29).

While Dole flaunts the benefits of his tax-cut proposal, he fails to

mention what will suffer in order to activate his tax cuts. First of all, Dole

made no mention of how his tax-cut proposal will pay for the $551 billion

reduction in taxes. Secondly, Dole does not say that he needs to cut spending

in “small” areas such as Medicare, student loans, defense spending and social

security. (Gibbs, 1996) Even if Dole plans to leave these things out of the cut,

that still leaves 30% of the budget to absorb the cost of the tax cut.

Professor Alan Aurbach, of the University of California at Barkeley, explains

the situation perfectly when he said, “they might as well turn the lights out in

Washington” (Lacayo 1996, 44). President Clinton’s administration counts on the

fact that Dole’s tax cuts will more likely than not balloon the deficit and the

Clinton administration remains confident that the American public will realize

this and deter from voting for Dole.

While Dole says he can cut taxes by 548 billion dollars and still

balance the budget, his plan proposes billions of dollars in new government

spending programs. Some of these programs include a 12 billion-dollar school

choice scholarship, an anti-drug offensive and a missile defense system which

has the possibility of costing up to 60 billion dollars. Jack Kemp jumps on the

Dole bandwagon by promising Montana ranchers that he and Dole will eliminate

estate taxes, which has not even been proposed as part of Doles plan. Further,

Dole says he can protect the benefits of all veterans, treat victims of the gulf

war, and account for all soldiers missing in action in Vietnam, “no matter how

much money it takes” (Gibbs 1996). The public obviously does not believe in

these promises considering the fact that in a poll taken in September of 1996,

two thirds of the voters said that it was impractical of Dole to propose that he

could cut taxes and still balance the budget. As Kerin Smirniotis says, “His

intentions are good, but no one in their right mind will believe that he can

just pull all of this money out of the air” (Barnes 1996, 6). Dole’s team says

his campaign merely rearranges budget priorities. They also say that Dole’s

difficulty in convincing voters lies in the fact that the American public

doesn’t fully understand his plan, which clearly seems to defy the principals of

simple math (Lacayo 1996).

President Bill Clinton argues that Dole hastily made these promises not

considering the consequences and selfishly insinuates that his plan will

contribute to all working people, rich and poor. The result being that Dole

will loose trust from both sides and inurn also loose support from both sides

(Duffy 1996). President Clinton says the only way Dole can feasibly cut taxes

would result in utter elimination of constituent based programs such as Medicare,

defense, and social security. The President also said that these reductions

will backfire and eventually, Dole will ruin his own campaign. Dole has reduced

to chanting the ever popular and feeble insult “liberal, liberal,” but against a

man who has spent his career fortifying himself against it, Dole will not be

able to sway the public. When asked at a press conference what he thinks of

Dole’s tax-cut package, the President remarked, “All he is going to accomplish

is to blow a hole in the deficit” (Rubin 1996, 12). Dole had his own words

about the President’s statement saying, “All I’m going to do is blow a hole in

his lead”(Rubin 1996, 12). President Clinton’s own proposal suggest a raise in

the people’s incomes which won him the hearts of the majority, and a sixteen

point lead in the polls. In the Presidents own words, For two years we pursued

an economic strategy that has helped produce more than five million new jobs.

But even though the economic statistics are moving up, most of our living

standards aren’t. It’s almost as if the American people are being punished for

productivity, we have got to change that. Increase in jobs isn’t enough, we

need increase in incomes(”The Senate Insider Reappears for a Chat” 1996, 12, 13).

Dole supporters say that his plan may not translate to everyone due to

the complexity of it. Getting people not to think and having blind support of

the Republican party may be Dole’s best bet to win the election, especially

since many of Dole’s numbers did not add up. Dole’s campaign advisers say the

he is running for President, not accountant in chief (”Can Dole Snatch Back

Election 96′” 1996). Dole’s plan merely plans to bait voters with the promise

to lower tax bills so he can overcome President Clinton’s lead in the polls.

Every analysis of Dole’s plan calls it vague, hopelessly optimistic assumptions

on top of assumptions, basically it will never work. Dole’s one chance of

victory, or saved embarrassment for that matter lied in renouncing his tax-cut

package and using his other strengths such as his experience in Washington. The

worst case scenario would be that he looses the support of his supply-siders,

which would not make much difference because he has not gotten that much more

than grief from them anyway. In short, it is a tragedy that Dole has sold his

soul to win the election, and now he won’t end up with either.

Dole likes to call himself an agent of change and says that President

Cinton is only a defender of the status quo. This seems to upset the

traditional views of both parties and reverses the roles. President Clinton

proposes only minor tax cuts and specifies payment through minor spending cuts

and other revenues while still protecting Medicare, social security, and other

related issues. Between President Clinton’s election in 1992 and the present,

the national deficit has fallen 60% from 290 billion dollars to around 117

billion dollars (Barnes 1996). The strongest case supported the candidate who

best represents the conservative American and also holds true to the Democratic

party’s tradition, United States President and fellow American, William

Jefferson Clinton.