Advertisement

Wilder Offers $57-Billion Poverty Plan : Politics: Democratic presidential aspirant would give tax credits to the poor, divert funds from other programs.

Share via
TIMES STAFF WRITER

Officials representing the Democratic presidential campaign of Virginia Gov. L. Douglas Wilder offered a $57-billion plan Saturday that they promised would end child poverty in four years and assist the financial well-being of poor and middle-class Americans--all without raising taxes.

The proposal seeks to elevate the sagging fortunes of Wilder’s campaign by casting him as heir to the traditional Democratic role of defender of the poor, while taking direct aim at an alternative income tax cut program offered by another Democratic presidential hopeful, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton.

Wilder’s ambitious program embraces $44 billion in tax credits for Americans living in poverty and the rest of the $57 billion in increased spending on federal programs that assist poor families, such as full funding of Head Start and Women with Infant Children.

Advertisement

To pay for the tax credits and increased federal spending, the Wilder campaign offered a proposal that, based on the 1992 budget, trims a total of $28.1 billion from 23 Pentagon programs. Additionally, the Wilder plan would cut $37.3 billion from 25 other areas of the federal budget, such as farm subsidies to wealthy farmers, National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs and renegotiation of federal contracts. The plan would also impose some users fees on selected government services.

Although Wilder has advocated a program of middle-class tax cuts, his campaign has drawn criticism for not offering any specific cuts or a plan to pay for them. By suggesting a set of tax credits, Wilder appears to be setting himself apart from Democratic rivals by pinning his campaign hopes to offering direct assistance to poor and middle-class voters.

An alternative program by Clinton derides “the old Democratic theory that says we can just tax and spend” by offering an income tax cut that would average about $350 for middle-income families. His proposal would increase spending on education and worker training, and provide targeted tax credits designed to encourage investors to bankroll new, start-up businesses. Paul Goldman, the Virginia Democratic chairman and an adviser to the Wilder campaign, pointedly stressed the differences between Wilder’s tax-credit proposal and Clinton’s income tax cut plan.

Advertisement

“Our proposal will help the poor and middle class the most,” he said, noting that people living below the poverty line already receive tax credits that cover their earnings and would not benefit from an income tax cut. “Clinton’s plan will help the wealthy the most and the poor not at all. There are two different philosophies about how to help Americans, and the Democratic Party is going to have to choose one.”

In Little Rock, a spokesman for Clinton’s campaign disputed Goldman’s statement, noting that Clinton, too, had proposed full funding of Head Start, an expansion of the earned-income tax credit, which supplements the income of the working poor, and programs to aid poor people in starting small businesses.

Wilder aides said their program would put about $900 into the pockets of the typical family of four that earns about $15,000 per year. In particular, the plan promises that Wilder, if elected, would end child poverty by the end of his Administration.

Advertisement

For example, the Wilder proposal would give a family with an income of less than $10,000 an annual $1,000 credit for every child under 6 years and $750 for every child between 6 and 17. The credits would decline as household income swells, and would be phased out in households that earn about $50,000.

The plan also calls for $100 tax credits for adults in households with incomes up to about $44,000; the adult credits would disappear in households with incomes exceeding $50,000.

Americans age 75 and above would qualify for $300 credits if their annual household income falls below about $6,000. Credits to the elderly would be eliminated at annual income levels exceeding $8,000.

Advertisement