Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (215702)	1/8/2002 10:53:42 AM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

And make them permanent. 'Over My Dead Body' Bush is against tax hikes--but what's he for? BY THOMAS J. BRAY Tuesday, January 8, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST The largely Republican crowd in Ontario, Calif., leapt to its feet with a roar on Saturday when President Bush promised that "not over my dead body will they raise your taxes." It was a good, visceral line, but it was also reminiscent of his father's "read my lips" pledge. And nowhere in that speech did the younger Mr. Bush tell the crowd what he himself would do about taxes. There was probably a good reason for that. While the president and his advisers have proposed a variety of tax cuts, it isn't easy to describe their package. It's not the sort of thing that lends itself to inspiring rhetoric. Instead, it's the sort of cats-and-dogs amalgam dreamed up by timorous committees of economic advisers and party hacks who are in danger of losing touch--once again--with the public on this central pocketbook issue. Republicans have been quick to point that their opponents don't seem to be offering much inspiration themselves. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, they note, has been quick to criticize last year's Bush tax cuts, but hasn't actually suggested repealing them. And Mr. Daschle's idea of tax reduction is an amalgam of even mangier cats and dogs than the Bush team is proposing. But that misses the point. The issue is not really taxes as such. It's the economy. And neither the Republican nor the Democratic plan provides much fuel for the great American jobs machine. So whichever one passes, the president loses, because ultimately it is the chief executive who is held accountable for such things. That, not the act of reneging on his tax pledge, is what really cost George W. Bush's father his job in 1992. Even though the economy was already well on its way to recovery by Election Day, the public saw Mr. Bush the elder as incapable of cutting to the heart of the economic issue. They decided to take a chance on somebody else. And it wouldn't be too surprising if voters made somewhat the same decision in the midterm congressional elections this fall. That would be a pity, because George W. has shown that he has the leadership qualities to cut through the Washington fog. He rejected timorous counsel that a war on terrorism, particularly in a place like Afghanistan, would turn into a bloody quagmire. He rallied the nation behind him in a magnificent fighting speech to Congress. And the success of his policy so far has earned him the respect of even his political foes--and the right to ask for equally bold initiatives on the home front. Now is the time for a Republican president to lay to rest yet another Clinton canard: that a major across-the-board tax cut would help only the rich. Yes, such a tax cut would heavily benefit the wealthy, but what of it? Just as America took a risk in Afghanistan and saw it pay off big time, so America should take a risk on the sort of broad-based tax cuts that could help turn a mere recovery into yet another boom--just as they did in the 1960s, 1980s and the late 1990s. President Bush should forget about "putting money in people's pockets" and about fiscal prudence as defined by the green-eyeshade types who surround him. He should reach within himself and ask: How can I connect with the people? Just as the public responded eagerly to his "dead or alive" ultimatum to terrorists, he should call on the public to take risks for restoring the economy to a growth path. Risk-taking is as American as apple pie. But since it is impossible to tell which risk-takers will produce the innovations that will power the economy forward, Mr. Bush might say, it is imperative to take broad measures to strip away the barriers to growth wherever they occur. Among other things, America's national security depends on just such growth, which allows it to build the powerful, flexible armed forces that will be needed in the future. And that implies not a menagerie of economic cats and dogs, but a clear, exciting goal: a major, permanent cut in taxes across the board. Then watch the American economy overcome whatever short-term deficit might occur, just as American armed forces overcome its short-term deficits of intelligence and experience in Afghanistan. Hopefully that's what Mr. Bush told Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan yesterday. One also hopes the president took the occasion to remind Mr. Greenspan of the latter's observation a year or so ago that deflation is now an equal risk with inflation. Those of us who live in places like Detroit see more danger these days from falling prices than rising prices. Even an old pro like Mr. Greenspan can see only part of the political-economic picture. Mr. Bush showed a willingness last month to go to the mat on a few budget issues. His veto threats kept spending in check without bringing down public wrath on his head, and his refusal to accept any old "stimulus" package showed a refreshing willingness to stick to his guns. He has plenty of political capital left over to take things a step further. Let's roll, Mr. President. opinionjournal.com