> What you have here, Rakesh, is dueling forms of meanness. The EITC is
> intended to drive a wedge between the "working" and "nonworking" poor,
> between the worthy and unworthy, the fit and unfit, the deserving and
> undeserving. That's why Clinton and the DLC love it. Dick Armey and his
> comrades think that since the EITC is refundable - i.e. you get it even if
> you don't pay any income tax - it's not fair to give folks a credit if
> they're already paying no taxes. So to Armey & Co. all the poor are
> undeserving. Or as fellow Texan Sen. Phil Gramm says, society is divided
> into those who pull the wagon (his rich consituents) and those who ride in
> it (the poor, all of whom are undeserving).
(Sigh.) There was already a wedge between those classified
as working or nonworking. Putting this on the EITC and its
boosters verges on the 'social fascism' rap. The EITC was a resort
to get some money to some poor folks. By your logic, we might as
well dispense with the standard deduction and exemptions, since they
are mere sops to the low-income among us and emphasize the malicious
distinction between the deserving and the un-.
MBS
"People say I'm arrogant, but I know better."
-- John Sununu
===================================================
Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200
202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036
http://epn.org/sawicky
Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute other than this writer.
===================================================
