Posted on 02/10/2004 9:10:13 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Bush critics have a question about his conduct in the war on terrorism almost as pressing as the ubiquitous "Where are the WMDs in Iraq?" It is "Where are the tax increases here at home?"
Tim Russert announced in his Meet the Press interview with President Bush — in a disapproving why-can't-you-get-with-the-program tone — "Every president since the Civil War who has gone to war has raised taxes, not cut them." As former Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta writes, capturing the critique perfectly, "While our fighting men and women are making the greatest sacrifice of all on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, the rest of us are encouraged to enjoy new tax cuts." So, is it a national scandal that American servicemen are fighting abroad when the capital-gains tax rate is 15 percent instead of 20 percent, and the child tax credit is $1,000 per child instead of $500?
No. It's not true that taxes always increase during wars. Taxes went up during World War I and World War II (although Franklin D. Roosevelt had already increased many taxes in the 1930s, in a misbegotten attempt to fight the Great Depression). But during conflicts that require less than total national mobilization, taxes don't necessarily increase. There weren't tax increases to pay for the Persian Gulf War (the first President Bush raised them for different reasons), or for Bosnia and Kosovo.
In the Cold War, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan — both devoted Cold Warriors — cut taxes. Reagan increased defense spending by 35 percent, while the top income-tax rate declined from 70 percent to 28 percent, in a strategy meant to restore at once American military power and the economy. The resulting budget deficits were worth it. They were economically inconsequential and disappeared as a growing economy produced more revenue during the next two decades.
Indeed, all the tut-tutting Bush critics who say taxes inevitably go up during wartime fail to note that borrowing goes up as well. The budget deficit was 30 percent of the gross domestic product in 1943. Today it is 5 percent of the GDP, a relatively tiny number and comparable to that of France, which is busy trying to obstruct our war on terror. Borrowing to fight an important war is almost the definition of a good investment, a short-term expenditure to make America and the world safer in the long run.
Bush is basically following the Reagan approach, investing to win a war and revive the economy. Consider the timing. His critics argue that in 2001, with the economy sinking, a stock-market bubble bursting and a massive terror attack rocking America, Bush should have raised taxes. But by no plausible economic theory does it make sense to hike tax rates in such circumstances. Even liberal Keynesian economists favor cutting taxes and running deficits during times of economic distress.
Where Bush has fallen down is in controlling nondefense spending. According to Heritage Foundation budget analyst Brian Riedl, if domestic discretionary spending had been held to its 2001 level, it would be roughly $270 billion less today, making for a budget deficit of roughly $200 billion. That's a very reasonable number, and one Bush now hopes to achieve in about five years.
But here's the rub: Bush's liberal critics want to increase all that domestic spending even more. So they wrap their advocacy of a tax increase in patriotic garb — "We're at war; taxes have to increase" — when they want to fund spending having nothing to do with the war. It is true that the United States faces a long-term fiscal crisis when the baby boomers retire and begin to enjoy the bounty of our generous Geriatric State. But that has been the case for a long time and won't change until Social Security and Medicare are scaled back and modernized.
Maybe now is the time to ask seniors and soon-to-be seniors to make the painful sacrifice of seeing their favorite programs changed. We're at war, after all.
Even if it were deemed vital to the nation's survival, President Bush could not possibly keep a straight face while raising taxes to fight this war -- in light of the massive increases in non-defense expenditures in the Federal government that he has approved over the last couple of years.
To put things in perspective, compare the long-term projections for the cost of this war (up to $500 billion over ten years, based on what I've read) with the projected Social Security outlays for the 2004 fiscal year itself -- $534 billion.
If a war of this magnitude is vital to our nation's survival, then let's start by slashing Grandma's Social Security check by 20%.
I believe Lowry agrees with you, as evidenced by the final paragraph in said article. ("Maybe now is the time to ask seniors and soon-to-be seniors to make the painful sacrifice of seeing their favorite programs changed. We're at war, after all.")
Yes, and as this anti-Bush ploy fails, it will get worse.
NOW Bush is being called on the carpet because taxes were raised in previous wars?
Next it will be that we aren't fighting hard enough because there were many more American casualties in previous wars so Bush must not be fighting this one hard enough.
To the likes of Russert, one day Bush is d@mned because he does, while the next day he is d@mned because he doesn't. Either way he is d@mned to some.
Imus is a has-been who sleep-walks through his daily show.
Dennis Miller has me using my clicker every night between his show and Hannity.
And Russert must be hard of hearing.
He asked the President the same questions over and over but got the same answer.
I guess he was expecting the Pres to wilt under the "pressure".
Russert is as ugly as a Brahma bull's ass.
I give Bush credit for just meeting him face to face.
Where was Panetta (and where were his cohorts) when the Enron and MCI thefts were occurring? They were making it look like the economy was booming, through falsified reports. If I were Panetta, I would keep my mouth shut. He knew a lot more than he indicated when he left the White House.
That is, hands down, the absolute BEST sig line I've seen here in a long, long time! :)
His sit back and let them talk demeanor is allowing the likes of Russert to make that point perfectly clear without Bush having to make the point himself.
??? I'm sorry, was this meant to be addressed to something I said, or something you think I might have said? Or was it simply intended for the author of the piece, instead?
Explain, please. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.