Dave- So, do I read this right that the Applebaum plan is a 'gimmick'? I agree
that the D's have made a mistake in emphasizing budget discipline--boy is that
an understatement, and where have the people been who should have been crying
about that for years now and loudly! Budget discipline is the traditional Repub
and sound money, sound finance position. The Dems totally betrayed common sense
budgetary policy (e.g. Bob Eisner's work) just like they betrayed their
traditional constituencies and progressive policies generally. But why does it
say that we probably can't "afford" a tax cut? In what sense? If you mean we
should not cut spending, let's say that! I understand this is "PR" but the
stimulative effects of the tax cut wont work unless we dont cut spending, right?
So lets cut taxes and not cut spending (or increase spending, but ok, maybe
that's not good "PR")! Why not really get on the side of the "people" and triple
Bush's tax cut, with the other 300 billion going all to the low and middle
incomes! The Dems in power have convinced themselves that budget balancing and
"paying down the debt" are good and right and true. Bob Eisner told me he had
dinner with Bill, Hill and Rubin and he said to them you know your budgetary
policy is bad economics and Clinton told him, "it is not about economics, it is
about politics. it is about getting al gore elected."!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richardson_D [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 1:58 PM
> To: pen-l
> Subject: Tax Cuts
>
> This is a memo that I am circulating inside the Beltway, for comment. At one
> point, before people started telling me that the Bush tax cut was about to
> roar through in record time, I thought that it could make a difference in the
> large. Nonetheless it may still be of interest. The text and the attachment
> are the same.
>
> Dave Richardson
>
> << File: TaxCutBroad.doc >>
>
>
> PROBLEM : Despite the fact that they lost the presidential
> election, the Republicans have moved to seize power with a speed and
> thoroughness that is unprecedented in recent memory. In part, this is because
> the R's have grabbed the big megaphone and used it to set the agenda. At the
> same time, they have been able to walk nimbly away from their missteps, e.g.,
> Linda Chavez, as well as their naked power plays, first in stealing the
> election and then blocking the count so that it stayed stolen.
>
> As the R's attempt to make their changes permanent, their first step is their
> tax cut plan, apparently about to roar through Congress with about as much
> opposition as against Ashcroft and Nelson. This stratagem, if successful,
> will mark a basic change in the direction of US policy, a change on the order
> of that brought about by the election of 1980 if not that of 1932. The
> changes on the horizon include that
> 1. Elections are not taken seriously in the sense that the most votes wins;
> 2. The economic interests of the people are irrelevant;
> 3. The D's do not care enough about 1 and 2 to do anything serious about
> them
> 4. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority are against.
> The D's have great issues here, issues that could propel them into power for
> the indefinite future. But the issues won't win unless they are exploited,
> and in their complacency the D's are showing no sign that they willing to
> exploit them. Indeed, the D's seem content to wait, in the mistaken
> assumption that the issues themselves will galvanize the voters. The result
> is that anger is focused as much on the D's as the R's. We always knew that
> the R's hated us, but abandonment by the D's is like betrayal by a family
> member.
>
> SOLUTION : In the most general terms, this is a public relations
> battle. What is at stake is the perception of the parties in the minds of the
> people. This could prove to be a pivotal moment in that, with the change in
> government, peoples minds are changing, and the result of people's changed
> minds will be with us for quite some time.
>
> The solution for the D's is really very simple: align themselves with the
> people on both the election and the tax cut. Tinkering about the edges won't
> do it: the D's must come out for democracy now* and tax cuts for the people.
> None of the R's bills actually have to pass provided the D's constantly remind
> their constituents and the media that they won the election and that they are
> for cutting the people's taxes.
> More specifically, the R's have made themselves vulnerable by actually
> proposing a specific tax cut. This will be a catastrophe for working America,
> for the 80-90% of the population whose main income comes from work or a
> retirement based on past work. The Bush tax cut involves an enormous
> medium/long term shifting of the tax burden away from those who can afford to
> pay to those who are just making ends meet.
>
> The D's have made a mistake in emphasizing budget discipline, questioning
> whether we really can afford a tax cut. This is a good question, and we
> probably can't afford it. It is also terrible politics: we should always be
> in favor of reducing taxes on working people in any and all situations. When
> W gets on the radio and says that his tax cut will reduce taxes by $1800/year
> for the average American family, it is a lie.** It is also terrific politics,
> especially since he delivers the lines so convincingly.
>
> One way to deliver a tax cut fairly to all working families was outlined in a
> Feb. 1 NY Times op ed by Harvard Prof. Richard Freeman and EPI's Eileen
> Appelbaum. It is dead simple: just present every permanent resident with a
> $500 dividend check from the government. Although Freeman and Applebaum don't
> say it explicitly, if there is a need next year, do it again. The virtues of
> this plan are that
> 1. It is simple: everyone knows what they will get;
> 2. Almost everyone would get more than they would under the Bush plan;
> 3. It could be part of a counter-cyclical macroeconomic policy;
> 4. It wouldn't write bad law into the tax code; and
> 5. If they had to give tax relief to everyone, the R's would probably back
> off.
> The main defect of the Freeman-Applebaum plan is that it cannot be passed.
> However, passing nothing is surely better than passing (some variant of) the
> Bush plan, since anything that passes will have the net effect of shifting the
> tax burden to working people from the affluent. We get no credit from
> improving a plan that cannot be improved, even if working people gain a few
> extra dollars in the process. What is important is to organize working people
> to fight for what's due, not 31 vs. 30 pieces of silver.
>
> IMPLEMENTATION : If the D's can't do it, we have to do it
> ourselves. In a sense, I see this as an emperor's new clothes situation: if
> we were able to propose a tax dividend loudly and often enough, we could
> control the agenda. This is not to say that it could pass even with 80%
> polling numbers-the capitalists would kill it in "committee."
>
> What could come out of it is a terrific organizing campaign. Let's call it
> "Paycheck Protection" and reclaim a powerful phrase from the other side.
> Right now the D's are not particularly seen as the allies of working people,
> and many are even equivocal about the AFL-CIO. The reason is that the D's are
> seen as not really believing in anything, and we may not be viewed in a much
> more favorable light. While economic issues do trump social issues, the D's
> are not seen as on our side on economics. And the people may well be
> right-the D's may not be on our side here. However, with labor and a few of
> the more liberal but still mainstream D's making some real noise, the D's in
> general may find that their fat-cat contributors are not as important as once
> thought.
>
> * Thank you Amy Goodman.
> ** Divide the proposed tax cut by the population yields about $450 per capita
> per year, and hence the average tax reduction for a family of four is about
> $1800. However, the median taxpayer (most taxpayers are families, and the
> median is the only way to make sense of the term "average family") makes
> $31,100 and would receive only $453 per year, according to Citizens for Tax
> Justice. Why so little? The Bush tax cut is skewed toward the very rich, so
> that 10% of the taxpayers would get 60% of the benefits.
>
>
