andicap
01-10-2002, 03:39 PM
This was a syndicated column coming from a Texas columnist....
Why our country is in so much trouble....
01/10/2002
(Copyright 2002 by the Chicago Tribune)
By Molly Ivins
The president has taken to saying peculiar things again. "Not over my dead
body will they raise your taxes," announced the president. Well, we know
what he meant. According to bipartisan budget experts, we're back in deficit
for at least the next several years. That didn't take them long, did it?
Nobody is proposing raising taxes, but some fiscally prudent voices have
been raised on behalf of postponing some of the generous tax cuts the
Republicans gave to the rich in April. You may think Americans are smart
enough to tell the difference between raising taxes and postponing tax cuts,
but apparently Republicans don't. You can already see what a great political
debate this is going to be.
This has an eerie familiarity to Texans, where Bush pushed through not one
but two tax cuts that left the cupboard so bare, the state is now stuck with
some hideous choices. With an estimated $5 billion deficit, Texas will
probably have to follow the lead of Gov. Jeb Bush in Florida and cut funding
for the schools. Jeb just signed a bill there slashing $600 million from
education.
One of the most ridiculous myths about government is that politicians just
love to raise taxes and are always looking for ways to do so. Pols consider
raising taxes certain death, and they are often right. The last time the
feds raised taxes, in 1993, in the face of deficits the size of the Grand
Canyon and a $2 trillion debt, the Democrats got it through by one vote in
the House and Al Gore voting in the Senate. They lost at the next election,
bringing us all the joys of Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Trent Lott & Co. Poor
Big George Bush, who had done yeoperson service by agreeing to raise taxes
in 1990, also paid with his political life, you recall.
Nobody ever has liked taxes and nobody ever will like taxes, but nobody
hates raising taxes worse than a politician. It is so notoriously difficult
that the late Rep. Jumbo Ben Atwell has carved on his stone in the Texas
State Cemetery, "He passed a tax bill." That's why stupid tax cuts are so
infuriating (almost as infuriating as stupid spending). For Bush to come
back now and trumpet his "economic stimulus" package is pushing folly beyond
permission. The package was so bad, it has been widely reported that when
they ran it by focus groups, people refused to believe the accurate
description of what was actually in it.
The good news is, they are changing the name of the bill! They've put the
word "security" in the title! Now instead of economic stimulus, it's the
"economic security" bill. This is such an improvement. Also, the former Bush
energy plan is now the "energy security bill." Since the normal danger when
discussing public issues is oversimplifying them, I suggest only warily that
this debate may be simpler than it looks.
The Republican theory of ec-stim is that we should cut taxes, especially for
rich people and big corporations. This, the theory goes, will inspire them
to invest their new loot in job-creating enterprises, thus ginning up the
economy. The Democrats tend to favor public spending, especially focused on
those who have lost their jobs, on the theory that these folks are so
hard-up, they'll rush out and spend it on new shoes for the baby, this
driving up demand and stimulating the economy to produce more again. Some
judicious souls believe in a mixture of both.
The trouble with the Republican theory is there's absolutely no guarantee
tax cuts will be put into increased production, and thus job creation, and
considerable evidence that it won't be. The rich can sit on their money--
they don't have to spend it. Corporations have no reason to increase
production when there is no increase in demand, plus they can use the money
in other ways, for leveraged buy- outs or buying back their own stock or
whatever they'd like to do with lots of money. The Democrats' theory is more
direct and, depending on which economist you listen to, works better.
And even simpler way to look at this is as a debate between demand- siders
and supply-siders. As some of you will recall from the Reagan era,
supply-side economics didn't work. That Laffer curve turned out to be a
steep one down. So the question is: How long is a national memory?
Why our country is in so much trouble....
01/10/2002
(Copyright 2002 by the Chicago Tribune)
By Molly Ivins
The president has taken to saying peculiar things again. "Not over my dead
body will they raise your taxes," announced the president. Well, we know
what he meant. According to bipartisan budget experts, we're back in deficit
for at least the next several years. That didn't take them long, did it?
Nobody is proposing raising taxes, but some fiscally prudent voices have
been raised on behalf of postponing some of the generous tax cuts the
Republicans gave to the rich in April. You may think Americans are smart
enough to tell the difference between raising taxes and postponing tax cuts,
but apparently Republicans don't. You can already see what a great political
debate this is going to be.
This has an eerie familiarity to Texans, where Bush pushed through not one
but two tax cuts that left the cupboard so bare, the state is now stuck with
some hideous choices. With an estimated $5 billion deficit, Texas will
probably have to follow the lead of Gov. Jeb Bush in Florida and cut funding
for the schools. Jeb just signed a bill there slashing $600 million from
education.
One of the most ridiculous myths about government is that politicians just
love to raise taxes and are always looking for ways to do so. Pols consider
raising taxes certain death, and they are often right. The last time the
feds raised taxes, in 1993, in the face of deficits the size of the Grand
Canyon and a $2 trillion debt, the Democrats got it through by one vote in
the House and Al Gore voting in the Senate. They lost at the next election,
bringing us all the joys of Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Trent Lott & Co. Poor
Big George Bush, who had done yeoperson service by agreeing to raise taxes
in 1990, also paid with his political life, you recall.
Nobody ever has liked taxes and nobody ever will like taxes, but nobody
hates raising taxes worse than a politician. It is so notoriously difficult
that the late Rep. Jumbo Ben Atwell has carved on his stone in the Texas
State Cemetery, "He passed a tax bill." That's why stupid tax cuts are so
infuriating (almost as infuriating as stupid spending). For Bush to come
back now and trumpet his "economic stimulus" package is pushing folly beyond
permission. The package was so bad, it has been widely reported that when
they ran it by focus groups, people refused to believe the accurate
description of what was actually in it.
The good news is, they are changing the name of the bill! They've put the
word "security" in the title! Now instead of economic stimulus, it's the
"economic security" bill. This is such an improvement. Also, the former Bush
energy plan is now the "energy security bill." Since the normal danger when
discussing public issues is oversimplifying them, I suggest only warily that
this debate may be simpler than it looks.
The Republican theory of ec-stim is that we should cut taxes, especially for
rich people and big corporations. This, the theory goes, will inspire them
to invest their new loot in job-creating enterprises, thus ginning up the
economy. The Democrats tend to favor public spending, especially focused on
those who have lost their jobs, on the theory that these folks are so
hard-up, they'll rush out and spend it on new shoes for the baby, this
driving up demand and stimulating the economy to produce more again. Some
judicious souls believe in a mixture of both.
The trouble with the Republican theory is there's absolutely no guarantee
tax cuts will be put into increased production, and thus job creation, and
considerable evidence that it won't be. The rich can sit on their money--
they don't have to spend it. Corporations have no reason to increase
production when there is no increase in demand, plus they can use the money
in other ways, for leveraged buy- outs or buying back their own stock or
whatever they'd like to do with lots of money. The Democrats' theory is more
direct and, depending on which economist you listen to, works better.
And even simpler way to look at this is as a debate between demand- siders
and supply-siders. As some of you will recall from the Reagan era,
supply-side economics didn't work. That Laffer curve turned out to be a
steep one down. So the question is: How long is a national memory?