Despite a war in Iraq and a record budget deficit, Congress, with the mandate of the Bush administration, continues to cut taxes. The latest cuts, which are directed toward working families, are justifiable, as U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Lisbon, said, because they are directed toward the middle class. However, members of the national government need to look long and hard at tax cuts and to begin to question whether this is the appropriate time to be decreasing taxation.
Cutting taxes is always a safe campaign move; both the Bush and Kerry campaigns are going out of their way to tell Americans that their tax burdens will be lessened if they are elected. And, in reality, there are positive aspects to President Bush's fourth tax cut in four years. The Working Families Tax Relief Act, which passed by a landslide 339-65 vote in the House of Representatives, maintains the per-child tax credit at $1,000 for the next five years. Strickland said for that and other reasons he could not, in good conscience, vote against cuts designed to help struggling working-class families. The relief is especially salient for residents of Athens County, which has a poverty level of 28 percent and a personal per capita income about $9,000 less than the whole of Ohio's.
But Strickland said he would not have written the bill as worded, mostly because the cuts are not paid for. And that, really, is the trick. In a time when the government is running a deficit of more than $422 billion, where is the fiscal responsibility in granting tax cuts left and right?
Tax cuts, especially in a time of war, represent the worst kind of electioneering. It is not as if the money coming back to both lower and upper class Americans is not directly affecting services. The police, military and educational funding many people clamor for -and politicians promise -will continue to be undercut at the expense of these cuts.
Holding the line on taxation in order to properly defend America abroad and to support services at home is an unpopular stance that very few politicians can afford to take. But what is good for polls is not necessarily good for the welfare of America, and the government's willingness to mortgage the future for short-term gains and popularity cannot continue. Easing the tax burden, especially for those struggling to make ends meet, is positive in and of itself, but not at the continued detriment to the long-term financial viability of the United States.
Dennis' dreams
As a statement against big drug companies, U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich's, D-Lakewood, newly proposed bill to take control of private drug research and to eliminate drug companies' monopoly serves a useful purpose as a way to draw attention to health care issues. But as a practical plan that actually would solve the prescription drug problem, Kucinich's plan is a pipe dream that will not result in any real change.
The Free Market Drug Act would make drug research and formulas public and the new drugs would be available to any manufacturer approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Kucinich and his supporters claim that, by making drugs generic, prices would fall because of competition.
The government would fund the private drug research, which Kucinich said would cost $20 billion, from the money the government would save when drug prices fell. He estimates the Medicaid program savings at about $15 billion annually, and the new Medicare drug plan could save an estimated $60 billion per year.
However, Kucinich's plan has no chance to succeed. Even if the plan did exactly what he claims it would, big drug companies and their lobbyists would never allow such a far-reaching bill to pass.
By going over the top in his crusade, Kucinich loses the ability to actually make a real change. Much like Ralph Nader, Kucinich's presidential run, billed as a platform for more liberal stances, became far more about Dennis and his eccentricities than his issues.
Kucinich no doubt has noble goals, but politicians in general must learn that taking such extreme stances damages credibility and limits their opportunities to promote real change.
17 Archives
The Post Editorial Board
