BUSH-WHACKING
THE ECONOMY
BY
JULIANNE MALVEAUX
|
Five weeks after the nation attempted to
select the President of the United States, the Supreme Court made a
decision that a divided nation could not. Hanging on a thread of law,
and not a little bit of partisanship, the Court decided that time had
run out on the 2000 election and so the man who only marginally led
(with hundreds of thousands of ballots uncounted) should be the nation’s
President.
What does this mean to the economy? I think our growth and prosperity will be Bush-wacked by an ill-prepared conservative whose intervention will only benefit the wealthiest is our nation. Mr. Bush’s across-the-board tax cut denies the uneven nature of economic expansion to date, and suggest that those who have already reaped more than their share with stock gains should get more through his largesse. Some Bush supporters have fallen back on a Keynisanism they abhor to say that a tax cut makes cyclical sense, especially if the economy is slowing. If they believe in this Keynsiansim, then they must think that fiscal policy makes enough of a difference as to turn an economy around. But most who study fiscal policy know that its lags undermine its effectiveness. Between the time a tax cut is floated, and the time it takes effect, the economy may possibly turn itself around. Fiscal policy has its legislative limits, which are not likely to be expanded by a Bush-wacked economy. There are another set of tax cuts that George W. Bush says he embraces, tax cuts that endanger the progressive nature of our tax system. Eliminating the death tax sounds good, but what it means is that those with large estates can avoid the taxation that many others have to shoulder. Embedded in the discussion of the wealth tax are questions about the nature of wealth. With the median family earning just $41,000 a year in income, though, it is difficult to make a case that those who inherit $675,000 are disadvantaged. When Congress makes this case, it illustrates how much it has distanced itself from average families. It Bush-wacks us all to say that the death tax is a priority in a nation where many, simply, cannot make ends meet. The same is true of the so-called marriage tax penalty. The Bush-wacked
say this tax penalizes marriage, but those who look at the real deal
say that the marriage tax penalty is simply a progressive tax.
Families who earn more should pay proportionately more for their
taxes. To do otherwise violates the basic tenets of a progressive tax
system. We all get Bush-wacked when we link economics with a strange
sense of morality, a sense that says that marriage is so valued that
it ought to get a tax break. Here’s the real deal on the so-called
marriage penalty. Families who earn $50,000 are taxed more than
families who earn $30,000, no matter how they get their money. That’s
fair. Some see penalty when I see fairness because they say they’d
pay less were they single. It depends; it really depends, on how
income in a household is earned. Congress has played games with us all
by dealing in the details here, not the bottom line We’re Bush-wacked
if we see this issue as a pressing and compelling national WE are also Bush-wacked when we allow the President-elect to make education a Republican priority. Education matters, but there are significant differences in approaches to the situation, differences in whether improvement means better bricks and mortar, or a more comprehensive system of vouchers. George W. Bush likes to point to his Texas record to speak of his commitment to education, but he might also take a look at a recalcitrant Congress that has, to dote, balked at building schools because they prefer to minimize the federal role in education. When the curtain fell on the 2000 election, there was much making nice, measured graciousness, and the sense that common goals and common ground would get us through this crisis. I reject the notion, though, that Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore ever had much in common. They approached the same issues from a different perspective, developed different tools for the same set of problems. While one talked across the board tax cuts, the other talked of targeting and focus. While one said he would cut death and marriage penalties, the other raised distribution questions about these issues. WE can make nice all we want, but we should not be Bush-wacked by the economic programs that will be proposed in the next three months. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said that the American people were losers because of the court’s failure to ask that every vote be counted. Our loss is not only political, but also economic. If George W. Bush can implement his campaign economic promises, he can change the way our nation benefits from the pace of economic growth. He can Bush-whack us all and get away with it if he can convince a divided Congress that his plans deserve a chance.
|