|
Yet another look at BushCo management, and capitalism's
licence to enforce future debt towards today's greed.
Natalia
''Millionaires' welfare''
Printed on Tuesday, July 01, 2003 @ 22:19:46 CDT ( ) By A.F. Nariman YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)
(YellowTimes.org) – Let us heed
the
word of one of our most erudite founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson: "I place economy among the first and most important of republic virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared."
I believe that the Republican Party makes a good case
in
suggesting that since the rich pay more in income taxes, they should therefore get back more in income tax cuts. I think it is important for the Democratic Party to accede to this statement of fact. And, if these tax cuts were indeed from "income tax surpluses," then I guess I could keep this note short and sweet and end here.
But, alas, the argument of conservatives makes no sense
in
the context of the recently passed $350 billion tax cut (actually, it is closer to $840 billion minus the "sunset" gimmicks), which was not taken out of income tax surpluses since there are none, nor for that matter from regressive FICA tax surpluses (borrowed to the hilt to pay for George W. Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut in 2001). Instead, the President's third tax cut in two years comes by borrowing from the public by raising the debt ceiling and increasing the national debt by close to $1 trillion.
In fact, there is no good reason why these federal
giveaways
should be based on one's income tax rate. The argument could be made that if Tiger Woods were President, he might opt for the federal giveaway being based on one's golf scores; Michael Jordan could equally opt for the federal giveaways being based on one's basketball scores while the Williams sisters would opt for basing the federal giveaways on one's tennis scores. All these would make about as much sense as giving these federal dollars away based on one's income tax rates. These rather ridiculous and far out points are made to stress the arbitrary and capricious nature of this federal giveaway from our public dole.
The very same people who are outraged by a distribution
of
income from the wealthy to the poor appear to have no qualms, and voice not a peep of objection to a distribution of funds from the working class to the nouveau riche. Is it any wonder that Bush is ready to break all fundraising records by raising $200 million in the 2004 election cycle? The same media, which raised such a hullabaloo and fuss about the purported "quid quo pro" on the Marc Rich pardon, has raised nary a peep on the obvious quid quo pro with the tax cuts.
Heck, if one got $94,000 in tax cuts from the
Republicans,
wouldn't one gladly toss a check for $2,000 to the GOP? The pay back of $94,000 on a $2,000 investment is equivalent to a return on one's investment of 4,600%. This beats the stock market hands down! In fact, one would be hard pressed to find another such sure bet, risk-free, investment vehicle in the world. The only caveat is that one has to belong to an exclusive club. You need to make over $1 million in income to get the payback. Not even in the gadfly days of the 1880s or the 1920s preceding the Great Depression could one group of people so corruptly become millionaires on the backs of the working class.
Hence, under these conditions, there is no logical
reason,
though obviously there is an ideological one, for giving "progressive income tax cuts" taken out of an increase in our national debt, since the latter falls equally on the child of a janitor and a millionaire!
Recently, Bush made a statement that 92 million
Americans
were going to get an “average” tax cut of $1,083.00. This is nothing less than political hubris and economic chicanery. Statistics don’t lie, but liars use statistics to further their own ends. What Bush doesn’t spell out is that approximately 40 million low income Americans will get no tax cut; people making less than an income of $77,000 will get an “average” of a $226 refund; while those making over $1 million will get a tax cut averaging $94,000. (These figures vary from source to source and are based on assumptions made in the calculations.) Bush knows full well that only a few people will catch him telling these whoppers. He operates secure in the knowledge that in order to get reelected, he needs to only fool some of the people all of the time, and most of the people some of the time.
In the past weeks, Bush has oft been heard stating,
"We
should return the people’s money to the people" in selling his tax cuts. What Bush assiduously avoids saying is that every family will also bear the additional burden of his failed economic policies. If Bush were ever to tell the whole truth, Americans would know that he is also sticking our children and grandchildren with a huge national debt of $44 trillion (based on a recently released report ordered by ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill). This translates to a debt of $157,142 (almost doubling from $89,000 in the last report) per man, woman and child. Also, curiously, while the tax cut is progressive, the debt burden is flat. The millionaire’s child will owe the same $157,142 in debt that the schoolteacher, the car salesman, and janitor’s child does.
Reagan raised the workingman’s FICA taxes and then
used
the unified budget to cut taxes for the wealthy, and George W. Bush, who should more correctly be given the moniker Ronnie II, is up to the same shenanigans of putting his millionaire friends on the public dole.
What does it say of our leadership that they are so keen
to
win or keep their current high office, no matter the ultimate cost to our nation, which is on the verge of economic collapse by 2012? If our government is allowed to fool us into ruination for their own short-term selfish interests, our great nation will follow in the footsteps of the Greek, Roman and British empires.
[A.F. Nariman has been interested in United States and
world
politics for close to twenty-six years. She has been a C-span junkie for the past decade or more. She has a yen for sleuthing out the intricacies of a political story. Her forte' is in the U.S. budget, as she is a Financial Advisor by profession and has a bachelor of science degree in mathematics and a MBA in Financial Institutions and Markets. Along with being a recent Democratic candidate for Congress in the 26th district of New York, she is a U.S. citizen and resides in New York State. Please visit http://www.narimanforcongress.org.]
A.F. Nariman encourages your
comments:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion
publication.
YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated. Related articles at YellowTimes.org · ''Stocks are not socks'' · ''Sailing into the storm'' · ''Some cheer, some cry, many die'' · ''U.S. hegemony: the dynamics of global power'' · All articles by A.F. Nariman |
