Bush Tax Cuts a Fool’s Errand

Is it me, or does anyone else find this constant push for a tax cut a bit wearying, not to mention overwhelmingly foolish? Don’t we have a war to pay for? Aren’t the vast majority of states running in the red? Aren’t there millions of Americans without basic healthcare, and still more unemployed? Is this really the best time to cut the government’s revenue stream?

Looking at my latest pay stub, I would be the first one to stand up and proclaim that I need tax relief, but then sobering reality would slap me in the face like the recent westerly winds hammered my newly built gazebo this past weekend. I, like the rest of my fellow sober, rational thinking, forward-looking, multi-dimensional Americans, must look at the larger picture. And that picture is fuzzy, its colors are starting to run, and fade. But it nonetheless illustrates an undeniable truth: we cannot afford tax relief, not now, nor anywhere in the distant future.

The President claims that the tax relief package—which seeks to significantly cut the dividend tax—will create new jobs, especially new small business jobs. Please, there are not enough small business jobs in America to employee the millions of people who have lost their jobs, let alone replace the income that has left the economy. When held up to the mirror of reality, the Presidents tax cuts are nothing more then a gift to the richest 1 percent of Americans; a thank you card from the President at our (the rest of the 99 percent of Americans) expense.

Consider the numbers: according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, under the President’s original tax relief plan, households with $40,000 to $50,000 in net (taxable) income would receive an average tax cut of $482 and an increase of 1.2 percent to their total after-tax income. For households earning more than $1 million, the average tax cut would be more than $89,500, with an increase in their after-tax income of 4.2 percent.

The $550 billion version of the President’s plan that passed the House of Representatives last week is even more generous to the rich. Those same middle-income households would receive a tax cut of $452 and an income boost of 1.1 percent, while the nation’s upper crust (those making over 1 million dollars) would receive a tax-cut of $93,537, enough to enlarge their after-tax income by 4.4 percent. The more unpretentious $350 billion tax cut that passed the Senate Finance Committee last week would trim the average millionaire's tax cut a smidgen, to $64,431. But it would also trim the middle class tax-cut to $415.

The 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut that passed in 2001, and gave us all $600 to spend, also gave the uber-rich a windfall, but it left the relative income tax burden of each income group largely untouched. That is because most of the cuts targeted income, and taxpayers at every income level received virtually the same percentage reduction. In contrast, the centerpiece of the Republican White House and Republican House tax plans—sharp cuts in taxes paid on dividends and capital gains—are aimed at investors, who tend to be very wealthy.

I, like most Americans, do not have large sums of money tied up in individual stocks. If we invest in the Market, our money is more than likely in mutual funds, 401(k)’s, CD’s and IRA’s. Therefore the benefit of the current round of tax-cuts for the vast majority of Americans would be negligible, unless of course you count the job creation angle. Just how does a cut in the dividend tax rate morph into a new job with health care benefits anyway?

This is not leadership; this is cronyism at its unabashed, unadorned, repugnant worst. And it only reinforces my belief that taken as a whole, the Republican Party has no political or social philosophy in which I feel comfortable supporting. The Bush tax cut proposal is a fool’s errand trumpeted by a Party that cares only for the rich conservative few that keep its coffers full, and its agenda at the center of American life, whether we like it or not. The tax-cut proposal is bad for America. At a time when we need bold leadership to see the country through the worst economic and fiscal malady since the end of WWII, we have Bush. Is it just me, or is anyone else looking for a safe place to hide for the next six years?

Source: Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Online. Bush Blunts 'Fairness Question' on Taxes
< http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47167-2003May12.html>

Did anyone else see the season ending shocker on The West Wing last night? Even I, an amateur Constitutional scholar, didn’t see that one coming. Last night’s episode is why The West Wing continues to be the best 45 minutes of drama on television, cable or otherwise! Of course the Law & Order series comes in a close second, but the ensemble (writers, directors, and actors) of The West Wing keep me clued to the screen from the opening dramatic theme song (it moves me every time) to the close of the show.

Now the question on everyone mind will be how easy will it be for Bartlett to regain the Oval Office next season. On its face, the wording of the 25th Amendment would seem to suggest that it would be and easy enough task to accomplish, to wit, section 3 & 4 of the Amendment state:

Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office. U.S. CONSTITUTION, amend 25, Sections 3 & 4.

All Bartlett need do is sign a piece of paper declaring himself fit for office once again, and the deed is done. But something tells me, that the Republican Speaker of The House, portrayed to perfection by John Goodman will not give up the trapping of the Oval Office that easily. Not to mention that in real life such a scenario has never played itself out; no President has ever faced the choices Bartlett had to face last night.

After the show the spouse and I lamented which past President would have had the character or devotion to duty, honor, and country to do what Bartlett did? I said Kennedy and Carter, and perhaps Ford would; she agreed on Carter. And would Bush faced with a similar situation today have the forethought, courage, and wisdom to invoke the 25th? Neither of us thought Bush capable of such a selfless act; sadly he lacks the character, intelligence, and wisdom.

Next season should be very interesting indeed. And I start Constitutional Process next year in Law School…very interesting indeed.