IF YOU ARE A WAGE EARNER

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS FOR YOU

The basic underlying difference between the two parties is economic.

The Republicans believe that if investors and big business are given tax breaks and other financial incentives the money will eventually trickle down to the rest of America.

The Democrats believe that the working class should be given any tax break that is available, increased wages, and enhanced working opportunities; that money will be spent in the market place within a short time which will stimulate the economy all the way to the top. Personally, as one who has always lived and supported my family from wages, I have to agree with the Democratic position. Those who earn their living from investing their money tend to agree with the Republicans even though the recessions of the decade of the 80's and early 90's prove "trickle down" simply does not work.

The capital gains tax was instituted back in the beginning of this century after the nations newspapers reported that the richest men in America did not pay income tax because they had NO INCOME. The 1996 Republican Congress attempted to eliminate the capital gains tax.

They were stopped by President Clinton and the Democrats in Congress. Most working people have never been asked to pay capital gains tax. The only capital gain many people ever have is from selling their home and since most invested that gain by buying another home it is not taxable. So, maybe most working people are not qualified to make a judgment on the issue but, my instincts tell me that every American, even the richest, should pay a fair share of the cost of keeping America alive and well.

Again in (1997) The Republican congress tried to pass legislation to eliminate capital gains tax. It was not as easy to stop this time because President Clinton had to compromise some of the capital gains tax to get republicans to give a little on such issues as health care, medicare, public safety, and economic stability. The result was a reduction in Capital Gains Tax to 20%

Was it the trickle down policy of the Reagan, Bush years of the 80's? If you remember George Bush left office with unemployment creeping into double digits. Companies were laying off employees by the tens of thousands. Recession was higher than the Nixon/Ford years. And, less than 6 months before the election, then President Bush refused to acknowledge the fact that we were headed for recession. . . . Still believing trickle down would work.

Is it the Democratic policy of the 90's with unemployment at a 40 year low, economic stability the best it's been in decades and foreign governments once again looking to the United States as a work leader?

George Bush campaigned as a Compassionate Conservative, and his campaign promises were to "Work with the Democrats". After his first few months in office he and his right wing appointees are showing they will do things their way . He has pushed and narrowly passed legislation protecting financial institutions against bankruptcy by ordinary people and he is proposing to drill for oil on Mainland US and Alaska protected land. Another of his proposals is to give taxpayers money to "Religious Help Groups" to assist needy people. Many of these groups will help those in need (provided they see the "right" way and change their beliefs).

This recently from a radio broadcast by Governor Gary Locke - Washington State

In his barely two months in office, President Bush has led an assault on the environment the likes of which our country has not seen in decades, including during the Gingrich years.

In an already long list of actions that will harm environmental quality, one of the most egregious was his recent announcement that he would roll back regulations that limit the amounts of arsenic in our drinking water. Here are a few facts. The current environmental standard limiting the amount of arsenic in our water is almost fifty years old. Since then, scientists have discovered an alarming amount of evidence about the dangers of arsenic in water. But it wasn't until last year that the Clinton Administration proposed tougher rules to reduce the amount of arsenic in our drinking water. The new standard would have lowered arsenic levels by 80 percent.

Why such a drastic cut? Because 11 million Americans have drinking water with dangerous levels of arsenic, and the problems associated with high arsenic levels are truly frightening. According to a 1999 report by the National Academy of Sciences, arsenic in drinking water causes lung, bladder and skin cancer, and may cause liver and kidney cancer, too. The study also said that arsenic harms the central and peripheral nervous systems, heart and blood vessels and may cause birth defects and reproductive problems.

The report concluded that the old arsenic standard, "does not achieve the Environmental Protection Agency's goal for public health protection, and, therefore, requires downward revision as promptly as possible." But President Bush decided to ignore that. In fact, his decision to weaken controls on arsenic in our water came in the middle of the EPA's national poison prevention week.

So why did George Bush cut back on protections against arsenic in our drinking water? Is he pro-arsenic? Of course not. The problem is that special interests, and not George Bush, seem to be controlling America's environmental safety programs.

More Bush Proposals - Special Interests Getting Their Way On Environment - Women and Children First... For Bush's Unfair Cuts - White House Plans To "Severely Scale Back" Major Crime Fighting Program

You must ask yourselves the same question President Reagan asked, "Are we better off now? Or, were we better off eight years ago?