Fiction and the Tax Cut
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Under the glittering chandeliers of the East Room of the White House, President Bush signed into law the most wealth-oriented tax bill in history.
Here she goes
THE INTERESTS OF the invited guests, mostly prosperous looking men in dark blue suits, were well-represented when congressional leaders put the finishing touches on the bill, preserving Bush's dividend tax cut while a $400 child credit for millions of low-wage families was eliminated.
OK, now she's starting. What is the purpose of this tax cut.... to get the economy rolling.
It was one of those nuggets that exposes the truth. Bush's tax cut was never about economic stimulus, or the rebate would have been directed toward the people who will spend it, not the rich who just get richer. Senate and House conferees brushed away the crumbs slated for those making barely more than minimum wage in order to maintain the fiction that the bill comes in under the Senate's $350 billion cap. In a bill already loaded with gimmicks, couldn't they have found one more phony accounting device to preserve the one tax break that makes economic and social sense?
See, all Bush wants to do is give more money to his millionare buddies. He doesn't care about the economy.
When I put that question to a Republican staffer, he said there was no one in the room who cared, not the principals, not the staff, and they didn't need Democrat Blanche Lincoln's vote anymore. She was the lawmaker who pressed the Senate to expand the child credit to include more low-income parents. Almost half the taxpayers in Lincoln's home state of Arkansas report taxable incomes of less than $20,000. Under the bill's formula, families earning between $10,500 and $26,625 will not benefit. The GOP staffer went on to say he didn't know whether his party was moved more by hubris or money, but he did know the people who just got screwed weren't at the president's dinner last week when Bush raised $22 million for Republican campaigns.
So, she wants to GIVE money back to people who don't pay federal taxes anyway? Yep, that will make the ecomomy grow.
Bush's critics inside and outside his party are suffering from outrage exhaustion. How much can Bush get away with before the public and the media hold him accountable? If this shameful provision is not repealed, 11.9 million children, or one of every six children under 17 ,will be shortchanged according to The Center on Budget and Priorities, an admittedly liberal group, but whose facts are not disputed. Keep an eye on the media and whether the networks pick up the story, first reported in Thursday's New York Times. If the Times story resonates, Karl Rove and his tag team of compassionate conservatives will do damage control, pledging perhaps to correct the omission with another tax bill in the fall, which they will see as an opportunity to push through still more cuts for upper-income voters.
Hey, if they want to have a GIVE AWAY then bring it up in another bill. That is not a tax cut. If we are going to give money to people that don't pay federal taxes then there must be corresponding cuts in spending. The people receiving the tax credit PAY FEDERAL TAXES.
Republicans on Capitol Hill are upset about the administration's arrogance. They're tired of getting the brush-off when they ask what happened to the weapons of mass destruction allegedly in Iraq and where's the administration's plan for the war's aftermath? Negative sentiment is growing as Congress comes to grips with the length of time (years, not months) and money (billions) and manpower (hundreds of thousands) it will take to rebuild Iraq. Just as Bush dissembled on the cost of the war, refusing to put a price tag on it until the bombs were falling, he hasn't come clean with Congress or the American people about the war's aftermath, or how it will squeeze domestic programs.
Now she really gets down to it. She's against the war with Iraq and is still trying to justify her opposition. Look, it's better to admit you are wrong. How soon we forget that this is a war on terror. Iraq is just one battle. Yes, it's all about domestic programs (for Clift that just means more spending on social programs). Sorry, no domestic program will stop terrorists. About WMD, they've found many labs and facilities that are capable of processing chemical weapons. What are those MOBIL labs for? Pesticides? Don't think so. My guess is that all the delay time allowed Saddam to hide the weapons real well or they are in Syria.
The economic rationale for this tax cut is dubious, but its political impact is clear. It's a cynical device to re-elect the president and put the country in hock. One Senate Republican dubs it "The Rangers Relief Act," after the newly created category of Bush donors who contribute at least $200,000 to his re-election. (The Pioneers used to be the high-rollers at $100,000 plus; now the Rangers, named after the baseball team Bush owned, are the heavy hitters.) "The tax cut reimburses the donors before they've given," says the Senate Republican, noting the added benefit of starving the government of resources to support the programs that Democrats typically champion, like Social Security and Medicare.
Sorry, wrong again. Sure there are some high rollers but most of what Bush built up was from individuals who were limited to giving $1,000. Also, please show me where Social Security and Medicare are being cut. Which bill is that?
More than 2 million jobs have been lost since Bush became president, yet it feels in Washington as if we're living in a second Gilded Age. Worries about income inequality or imbalance are treated like quaint notions from another era. A report touts a new casino opening in Atlantic City that will feature thousand-dollar coins for slot machines. The clientele it hopes to attract won't be spending the milk money. Richer Americans send their children to private schools, so who cares if Bush's much heralded "No Child Left Behind" education bill is woefully underfunded. There is no counterbalance to the corporate priorities of the Bush administration and the shifting of the tax burden to lower-earning Americans in order to free up the capital of the rich. Still, it is a gamble for Bush. If the economy doesn't recover sufficiently, can he blame it on the Democrats for not giving him everything he wanted?
This recession started in 2000 before Bush was even in office. He caught the downside of the economy. Would somebody please show me how the tax burden is being shifted to lower Americans? This is just a lie. In the last 2 tax cuts EVERYBODY who pays federal taxes gets a tax cut. Sorry Eleanor Rodham Clift, it's the people with money that spur the economy and provide jobs. They also pay for most of the taxes. 98.09% of all taxes revenue comes from the top 50% wage earners, 67.3% is paid by 10% of the top wage earners and 56.47% is paid by the top 5% earners based on Y2K IRS data. (The IRS: Individual Income Tax Returns Each Tax Year 1986 - 2000). A few years ago it was that Republicans wanted to poison the water and let old people die of starvation. Now it's more class warfare. For people to get and keep jobs, the people with the money need less of a tax burden.
© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.
MSNBC Terms, Conditions and Privacy ©2003
Posted by Tim at May 31, 2003 12:24 AM
