Posted on 10/13/2001 7:32:48 AM PDT by churchillbuff
Bipartisanship overrated
October 11, 2001
BY ROBERT NOVAK
Beginning this week, the 41-member House Ways and Means Committee will start shaping a tax bill that is intended to revive the economy but fills key Republicans with fear and frustration. The fear is that they are drafting a stimulus bill that will not stimulate. The frustration is that they are getting little or no help from the Bush White House.
The two most potent ways to stimulate the economy would be to reduce the capital gains tax rate and speed up effective dates of income tax cuts passed in the administration's bill earlier this year. President Bush and his economic team remain cold toward capital gains tax cuts and are passive about ensuring that accelerated tax cuts are included for upper-bracket taxpayers, where they would do the most good.
Lack of support for supply-side doctrine by this Republican White House is no surprise. What's new since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 is Bush's determination to set aside partisan concerns and achieve bipartisan unity during national crisis. Unfortunately, that impulse is largely unrequited. While Bush seemed ready to abandon ideological concerns, the Democratic leadership of Congress was not.
The war on terrorism led Bush and his inner circle to believe he was back in Austin dealing with the tame Democrats of the Texas Legislature. The president was acquiescing in liberal standbys unrelated to economic stimulation: tax ''rebates'' to low-income people who do not pay income taxes, extended unemployment compensation that does not encourage aggressive job-seeking, and federalization of airport security employees (adding 30,000 people to Democratic-inclined government workers unions). There seemed to be agreement on a 50-50 split between spending increases and tax cuts for stimulation.
So many concessions worried Republicans last week, with old hands recalling the senior George Bush's capitulation to Democratic tax-increase demands a decade ago. Rank-and-file Republican members were on the telephone last Thursday, protesting to White House aides. GOP congressional leaders talked to the president himself.
Bush's advisers long have pledged he would not repeat his father's mistake by alienating his conservative base, and last Friday he adjusted to that base. ''In order to stimulate the economy,'' said the president, ''Congress doesn't need to spend any more. What they need to do is cut taxes.''
That put Bush on the right side of the partisan divide, but not clearly the ideological divide. House Majority Leader Dick Armey telephoned reassurances to conservative journalists that the GOP had not given up on capital gains taxes. There was no echo from the White House, however, backing the tax reduction best-suited to revive equity markets and the greater economy. The only kindred soul in the White House perceived by congressional supply-siders is down the pecking order: 40-year-old Cesar Conda, who heads Vice President Cheney's six-person domestic policy staff.
The highest-powered stimulation that could emerge from the Ways and Means Committee is acceleration of all tax cuts passed earlier this year. Democrats are insisting that only the 28 percent and lower tax brackets get the cut, and the White House appeared to acquiesce in this limitation inspired by the economics of class warfare. The best hope for Republican-style stimulation is Chairman Bill Thomas, who takes a dim view of bipartisan pretensions.
This is a democracy where the two great political parties should disagree on ideology, even during what the White House calls ''time of war.'' Democrats, while claiming Republicans are unloading all their tax-cutting paraphernalia to take advantage of a national crisis, respond with their usual rhetoric of class warfare. House Democratic Whip David Bonior, running for governor of Michigan, pledged: ''We're going to fight like hell to make sure working people get their fair share.''
Bush should recall recent history to note that Americans did not forgo politics even when unified in World War II. In February 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt vetoed a tax bill because he called it too easy on the rich. In language that Bonior would approve, Roosevelt said the bill provided ''relief not for the needy, but for the greedy'' (and then saw his veto overridden). A great war president need not be bipartisan. October 11, 2001
That's the idea. The 'Rats will do anything to regain power.
....of the government shaft.
It's one thing to be civilized, decent, and cooperative with people who give you the same consideration in return. It's another thing to give in to people who are in the habit of always taking and never giving.
No. Bush should do the right thing and not worry too much about the Democrats. If his poll numbers drop, they will stab him in the back anyway, first chance they get.
With all due respect, this is nonsense. The liberal domination of the media, coupled with the propaganda machine of the Democrats in Congress, will GUARANTEE that prevailing public opinion will blame Bush and the Republicans for ANYTHING negative that happens to the economy prior to the upcoming election.
If you'll recall, Bush the Elder went down in flames over a minor, transient downturn in the economy that was corrected well before the election. Not only did the media refuse to report the improving economy, but they trumpeted Clinton's lie that it was "the worst economy in years". Enough people bought this propaganda that Bush was toast. It could happen again quite easily.
The best way to achieve that is by cutting the capital gains tax, reducing corporate taxes, and speeding up the tax cuts passed earlier this year.
Can someone explain to me why "working people" are entitled to their "fair share" of tax cuts and rich people, who evidently are NOT working people, are not entitled? Those in the $100K, $200K on up tax bracket are getting screwed in taxes.
This will cause a large spending spree in the tech sector.
Maybe so, but people who are out of work 12 months from now are not going to be friendly to incumbents - - ie, if the economy hasn't turned around, the GOP could lose the House. If Bush isn't thinking very hard about how to avoid that prospect - - primarily with real, signficant tax cuts for investors and other job-creators - - then he's cruising for a bruising during the last two years of what could be a one-term presidency.
They both were under the mistaken impression that Bush was irritated about some Congresscritter telling the Wash. Post that there was a 100% chance of another attack. Neither Novak nor Press were aware that he was pi$$ed about something that the Post learned, and did not print.
As for capital gains rate changes, there may be two factors which lead the President to not push them.
1. How do you use them to immediately impact the economy? They wouldn't be effective in getting cash into the economy until April, 2002.
2. How much capital gain is out there? I know that I don't have much, if any, to speak of for my stock portfolio. I suspect that the economists have told the President that for now, capital gains are a dried up cow. The only people who could possibly gain would be owners of rental properties who would like to sell.
Did I not see (in a newspaper this morning) that the House has worked up a tax cut whick includes lowering the 27.5% bracket to 25% immediately?
Also, it removes capital gains taxes from corporations, which would free up investment money.
There's employment out there if people are willing to work. We still have 20% vacancy rates where I'm employed and are still recruiting.
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.