Who is Dick Gephardt?

Rep. Richard A. Gephardt: Erratic and Misguided Economic Policies

Background

Born in 1941 in the same South St. Louis neighborhood that he currently represents, Dick Gephardt has served in the U.S. Congress for twenty-seven years. After attending Northwestern as an undergraduate, he graduated from University of Michigan Law School and practiced law from 1965 to 1977. His career in politics began in 1971 when he was elected as St. Louis City Alderman and served in this capacity until 1976 when he moved on to the U.S. House of Representatives. In 1984, he was chosen to lead the Democratic Caucus, and in 1988 he made an unsuccessful run for the Democratic Presidential nomination. After winning the Iowa caucus, he was soundly defeated in New Hampshire and on Super Tuesday. Faced with these crushing defeats and having spent all of his money, he was forced to end his candidacy. He became House Majority Leader in 1989 and held that position until the Democrats lost their majority in 1994 at which time he became the House Minority Leader. In 2003, he resigned from this post to take another stab at the Democratic Presidential nomination.

Issues

Taxes

Gephardt did not start out as a tax and spend Democrat. In 1981 he voted for Ronald Regan’s tax cut and was the House co-sponsor of Senator Bill Bradley’s 1986 Tax reform. However, in the mid-1980’s, in order to ascend to party leadership positions, he began to flip flop on many issues including taxes. He abandoned the 1986 reform bill that he sponsored, and in 1993 he supported Clinton’s tax increase package (although it was joined with useful reductions in spending). He does, however, offer his own version of fundamental tax reform. He claims, “Roughly three out of four taxpayers would end up paying no more than 10% of their income in federal income taxes. In addition, the other tax rates found in today’s code would be lowered dramatically. My plan would reduce the tax burden for 62% of US taxpayers. A family of four would pay no federal income tax on its first $27,500 in income and no more than a 10% rate on income up to $61,000.

I’d treat all income the same, [both earned and investment income]. By eliminating most tax preferences, we’ll dramatically simplify the tax code” (ontheissues.org). While this looks like a good plan, he says nothing about the 25% of Americans who would not be eligible for the low 10% rate. With the current levels of spending in Washington, and 75% of the population paying very little, one in every four Americans will have to bear quite a large burden.

Minimum Wage

Originally, Gephardt opposed increases in the minimum wage. However, the political winds of the 1980’s changed his mind on the issue. He has since become an active proponent of a higher minimum wage, a policy that costs jobs and locks the most vulnerable workers out of the workplace entirely.

Social Security

Dick Gephardt claims to believe that the current system is doing its job. He is on the record as saying, “The assertion that Social Security is going bust in 2016 flies in the face of all reality. The facts are these: Social Security has enough reserves in the trust fund to last until at least 2038. These assets have the full faith and credit of the United States government behind them, and the Social Security system is fundamentally strong for many years to come” (Truthout.com). He fails, however, to talk about what will happen to those who wish to collect from Social Security after 2038, or what real resources are actually in the “trust” fund. The reality is that Congress has completely spent the Social Security trust fund.

. Gephardt calls plans to create Personal Retirement Accounts (PRAs) “schemes” saying, “But on Capitol Hill, Republicans want to avoid a real debate that involves their schemes to privatize and cut Social Security benefits.” He has also said, “If the president’s plan had been in place at that time, today’s retirees would have lost $2,016 in benefits as compared to those who retired in Dec. of 2000. That’s the impact of turning Social Security over to the stock market.” These statements play on people’s fears while ignoring the truth about the future inability of social security to provide for the needs of today’s youth. Furthermore, as the RNC website reports, since Gephardt began his career in the House in 1977, Democrats have used the Social Security surplus 13 times to mask government deficits. Gephardt voted for budgets that used the Social Security funds 11 times. In the Fiscal Years of 1983 through 1998, Gephardt voted for 9 federal budgets that used the Social Security surplus for other governmental purposes

School Choice

Dick Gephardt opposes school choice in favor of keeping children locked in a failing public school monopoly. He voted NO to create a voucher system for DC schools. He is on the record as saying, “When there are no public schools, those with money will be able to buy a better education for their kids; the rest will get by with whatever third-rate product they can afford.” Yet, despite his stance as a champion of education for the poor, he voted NO on a bill to allow certain federal funds designated for elementary and secondary schools to provide scholarships or vouchers to low-income families to send their children to private or parochial schools.

Welfare Reform

Gephardt voted no on the passage of the 1996 welfare reform bill. On May 16, 2002 he voted against its reauthorization. Although the House passed the bill, the Senate failed to act. The bill was brought up again this year, and surprisingly, Gephardt registered his third no vote for welfare reform. As a fan of big government, Gephardt would prefer to keep welfare programs centralized and run by the federal government instead of allowing them to be tailored to recipients at the state level.

Tort Reform

A former trial lawyer himself, Gephardt is beholden to the Democratic party’s wealthiest special interest. Back in 1985, Gephardt made an attempt at Tort reform with the Moore-Gephardt reform. This reform applied only to cases of medical malpractice, and gave the defendant the opportunity to offer to pay all economic damages as defined by state law and attorney’s fees before a trail started. If this offer were refused, the standards for claiming punitive damages for pain and suffering would be raised.

Free Trade

Dick Gephardt is probably the most visible proponent of failed, retrograde, brute protectionism. He has called the day NAFTA passed, “one of my darkest in Congress.” He went on to say, “The treaty was flawed and would endanger our standard of living-not just in obvious, immediate ways but gradually, by changing the competitive structure under which we deal with other countries. The agreements affecting labor & environmental issues are sadly inadequate & lack teeth. Since NAFTA, I really believe things have gotten worse.” He as also consistently opposed Trade Promotion Authority, which is not surprising since it prohibits him from inserting protectionist language into trade agreements. Moreover, Gephardt has received millions of dollars from labor. In 1996, more than 25% of his campaign funds were from organized labor.

Update:Gephardt On the Constitution

“When I’m president, we’ll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day.”
— Rep. Dick Gephardt, June 23, 2003

With this statement last week, Dick Gephardt shows breathtakingly hubris and disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Of course, such an action would not be the first time the presidential office would have been used to attempt to circumvent the constitutional protections of checks and balances. In the 1930s, during the New Deal, the largest expansion of government in the history of the country, President Roosevelt attempted to expand the Supreme Court and fill the new seats with justices who would be friendlier to his legislative agenda. This plan ended up backfiring on Roosevelt and cost him politically, although he eventually strong armed the courts to approve his clearly unconstitutional agenda.

Like Roosevelt, this statement could signal the beginning of the end for Gephardt. No matter what people’s opinions of Supreme Court decisions, the court has been recognized as the final word on laws in the United States since the early decision of Marbury v. Madison. Gephardt has always seemed intent on making bad fiscal policy, bad social security policy, and bad educational policy. Now he seems intent on doing it regardless of what the other branches of government say he can or cannot do.

Gephardt’s Score Card

KEY

ADA – Americans for Democratic Action

ACLU – American Civil Liberties Union

AFS – American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees

LCV – League of Conservation Voters

CON – Concord Coalition

ITIC – Information Technology Industry Council

NTU – National Taxpayers Union

COC – Chamber of Commerce of the United States

ACU – American Conservative Union

NTLC – National Tax-Limitation Committee

CHC – Christian Coalition