Welcome to Fantasy Island!
WIth all apologies to Ricardo Montalban and Herve Villechaize, I would like to posit the following:
If you really believe that, regardless of who wins the election, you won't be paying more in taxes in the next four to eight years, you are living on Fantasy Island.
Senator Obama says he wants to offer additional tax cuts to Middle-American families. That sounds good. Senator McCain says he won't raise anybody's taxes. That sounds good too, especially if you're rich. But both these ideas fly in the face of the new American Reality: two wars and a devastating financial crisis, that no American (yet) has been asked to pay for.
In World War II, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked every American, of every stripe, to contribute to the war effort. People were encouraged to buy war bonds. Taxes were raised on luxury items, like tobacco and alcohol and stockings. People salvaged their tin cans and old tires. They worked extra jobs in the wartime economy. Everyday Americans sacrificed; every American felt the cost of waging war.
Let me ask you a hypothetical. Let's say that on September 12, 2001, President Bush had gone before the country and said the following:
"My fellow Americans, in light of the unprecedented attacks on our homeland, the Congress and I have agreed to declare a global war on terror. It is not just our military, but all Americans who must join in this fight. That is why I have asked the Congress to enact immediate legislation that will impose a one dollar Patriot Tax on every gallon of gasoline sold in this country. And every American will have the pride and privilege of knowing that, every time they fill up at the pump, they are directly contributing to victory in the War on Terror."
Would you - Republican or Democrat - have been on board with that? My answer is, yes.
What would a one dollar a gallon Patriot Tax have done? Let's think it through. The obvious is that gas at the pumps would have gone up by a dollar a gallon. People would have started looking for ways to drive less: public transport, carpooling, etc. I think we can all agree that less driving would have meant less carbon emissions, which is good for the planet - and your lungs.
But what else might have happened? The obvious consequence of decreased driving is decreased demand for gas, which means decreased demand for crude oil. The most obvious consequence of a decreased demand for crude would be that petro-dictatorships like Saudi Arabia (who, by the way, gave us 18 of the 19 September 11 hijackers), would have had to seriously reconsider their pricing, which would likely have led to a decrease in the price per barrel of crude - which would have meant a decrease in the price of gas at the pumps, even with the Patriot Tax.
And most importantly, the U.S. government would have instantly had billions of dollars at it's disposal to fund the War on Terror. And we the citizens would have been doing our part.
But that only happened in my Made Up America. What really happened was, the President told us to go shopping. He implied that our patriotic duty was to buy more stuff. He never gave us the chance to be patriotic, because he thought we couldn't hack it. Or worse, that we might do it, but then decide not to elect him to a second term. Then - as if one war wasn't enough - he started a second one. He made several attempts to tie this second war in Iraq to the War on Terror, but the only people who still believe that are the people who don't read newspapers or have any interest in fact. And we haven't been asked to pay for that war, either.
Now we have the worst financial crisis this country has seen since the black days of 1929. There's your trifecta.
I told you all that to tell you this: unless you jumped up or down a tax bracket in the last eight years, you're paying the same amount in taxes that you did on September 10, 2001. Even then, this government was operating in a deficit, because the Bush administration had cleared out a 160 billion dollar surplus - some to lower and middle income families, but mostly to the richest one to two percent of the population who didn't need it. Now add two wars, and one financial meltdown. But we're still paying the same amount of taxes we did before any of that went down. Are you smellin' what I'm steppin' in?
In all kinds of ways, Americans are paying the price for consistently living beyond our means. The bills are coming due, and we can pay the bills one of two ways. The government - Republican or Democratic - can raise our taxes. All Americans can finally start to feel the cost of war, and the cost of buying more than we could afford, which hopefully would lead to a new wave of fiscal responsibility, and less appetite for nation-building. Or, we can put the bill off a little longer by borrowing more money - say, from China.
The problem is, China now owns Fantasy Island.
If you really believe that, regardless of who wins the election, you won't be paying more in taxes in the next four to eight years, you are living on Fantasy Island.
Senator Obama says he wants to offer additional tax cuts to Middle-American families. That sounds good. Senator McCain says he won't raise anybody's taxes. That sounds good too, especially if you're rich. But both these ideas fly in the face of the new American Reality: two wars and a devastating financial crisis, that no American (yet) has been asked to pay for.
In World War II, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked every American, of every stripe, to contribute to the war effort. People were encouraged to buy war bonds. Taxes were raised on luxury items, like tobacco and alcohol and stockings. People salvaged their tin cans and old tires. They worked extra jobs in the wartime economy. Everyday Americans sacrificed; every American felt the cost of waging war.
Let me ask you a hypothetical. Let's say that on September 12, 2001, President Bush had gone before the country and said the following:
"My fellow Americans, in light of the unprecedented attacks on our homeland, the Congress and I have agreed to declare a global war on terror. It is not just our military, but all Americans who must join in this fight. That is why I have asked the Congress to enact immediate legislation that will impose a one dollar Patriot Tax on every gallon of gasoline sold in this country. And every American will have the pride and privilege of knowing that, every time they fill up at the pump, they are directly contributing to victory in the War on Terror."
Would you - Republican or Democrat - have been on board with that? My answer is, yes.
What would a one dollar a gallon Patriot Tax have done? Let's think it through. The obvious is that gas at the pumps would have gone up by a dollar a gallon. People would have started looking for ways to drive less: public transport, carpooling, etc. I think we can all agree that less driving would have meant less carbon emissions, which is good for the planet - and your lungs.
But what else might have happened? The obvious consequence of decreased driving is decreased demand for gas, which means decreased demand for crude oil. The most obvious consequence of a decreased demand for crude would be that petro-dictatorships like Saudi Arabia (who, by the way, gave us 18 of the 19 September 11 hijackers), would have had to seriously reconsider their pricing, which would likely have led to a decrease in the price per barrel of crude - which would have meant a decrease in the price of gas at the pumps, even with the Patriot Tax.
And most importantly, the U.S. government would have instantly had billions of dollars at it's disposal to fund the War on Terror. And we the citizens would have been doing our part.
But that only happened in my Made Up America. What really happened was, the President told us to go shopping. He implied that our patriotic duty was to buy more stuff. He never gave us the chance to be patriotic, because he thought we couldn't hack it. Or worse, that we might do it, but then decide not to elect him to a second term. Then - as if one war wasn't enough - he started a second one. He made several attempts to tie this second war in Iraq to the War on Terror, but the only people who still believe that are the people who don't read newspapers or have any interest in fact. And we haven't been asked to pay for that war, either.
Now we have the worst financial crisis this country has seen since the black days of 1929. There's your trifecta.
I told you all that to tell you this: unless you jumped up or down a tax bracket in the last eight years, you're paying the same amount in taxes that you did on September 10, 2001. Even then, this government was operating in a deficit, because the Bush administration had cleared out a 160 billion dollar surplus - some to lower and middle income families, but mostly to the richest one to two percent of the population who didn't need it. Now add two wars, and one financial meltdown. But we're still paying the same amount of taxes we did before any of that went down. Are you smellin' what I'm steppin' in?
In all kinds of ways, Americans are paying the price for consistently living beyond our means. The bills are coming due, and we can pay the bills one of two ways. The government - Republican or Democratic - can raise our taxes. All Americans can finally start to feel the cost of war, and the cost of buying more than we could afford, which hopefully would lead to a new wave of fiscal responsibility, and less appetite for nation-building. Or, we can put the bill off a little longer by borrowing more money - say, from China.
The problem is, China now owns Fantasy Island.
posted by Larry B | 10:40 AM
4 Comments:
First let me tell you I agree that this country needs to balance the budget. There is no doubt that we as a nation cannot keep doing what we are doing in terms of the National Debt. How we do that though is a matter of discussion.
I take issue with your assertion that Bush wiped out a surplus. There never was a surplus and all you have to do to prove that is go the US Government Treasury website that tracks the size of the debt by year. It did not go down during the years that Clinton said there was a surplus. Clinton's supposed surplus was nothing more than Washington double-speak.
Using FDR as an example of what Bush should have done is also something I take issue with. The dynamic involved during pre-world war II was completely different in terms of ecomonics and national sentiment. Using hindsight is too easy. Increasing the gas tax by a dollar would by far have been the worst thing for this economy and hurt low and middle class americans the most. Our economy was already heading south post 9/11. So how about just putting the daggar in and twist a little. It nice to throw out plattitudes but think about this one a bit.
The problem with your assertion is you believe that more taxes equals more money to the treasury. Ronald Reagan proved that this is not the case. In order to spur economic activity he cut taxes and increased the amount of money flowing to the treasury. A better plan is to reduce government spending my friend. It is estimated that of the 2.7 trillion national budget, the government wastes 1 trillion. Rasiing taxes is not the way to teach fiscal responsibility in fact I would argue it is the other way around.
Government is not the answer, they don't know how to spend my money or yours.
The financial meltdown is interesting on a number of fronts. How you can blame Bush for that is beyond me. First if you look historically, Jimmy Carter got the ball rolling by signing the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 affectionately known as CRA. President Clinton deregulated the banking industry in 1999 by undoing FDR era Glass-Steagell prohibiting banks from mingling with investments and insurnace. At the time the most massive deregulation of the banking industry. These two acts of legislation provided a catalyst for the current financial meltdown.
Carter's act forced banks to throw out age old lending standards and make questionable loans. Subprime got a boost in the mid 1990's when congress got Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac involved and that was where the housing market bubble began to form. This did not just happen in the last eight years.
Now for the war(s). President Bush could not have “started” anything without the approval of Congress. They had the same intelligence and you know it. At the time if you recall everyone, democrats and republicans were on board. This one is really tired so I am not going to belabor it.
As a conservative I will say I have been less than pleased with President Bush. I am in favor of less government, less taxes, and most of all fiscal responsibility. You are coming off as a complete Bush hater though. I think I have heard you say before that blaming prevents us from looking forward and finding solutions. I guess I don't see it here in your blog.
At the end of the day Larry, our elected officials from both sides of the aisle have and continue to make poor decisions. As a student of history, I am amazed at what leaders past and present have done that continue to shape the world we live in.
Jeff: Thanks for leaving a response.
I took your advice and went out to the US Treasury website. What I found was that I misquoted a number. It wasn't a surplus of 700 billion (I was probably still processing the announced bailout). The actual number , in 2001, was 160 billion. I'm quoting directly from a press briefing that OMB Director Mitch Daniels gave on August 22, 2001, at 10AM: "The report we've issued this morning confirms that the nation has entered an era of solid surpluses. Surpluses on the order of $160 billion, despite an economy that has been week now for over a year and in decline for that time. This is the second largest surplus in American history, in the face of that weak economy, a phenomenon that should strike all Americans as very positive."
When the guy who is in charge of the Treasury's books announces a 160 billion surplus, I'm inclined to go with him.
I'm not sure what "platitudes" you think I was throwing out, but I do believe if America is going to go to war, then America should pay for it. The price of gas on September 11 was roughly $1.55 a gallon nationwide. Until the bottom fell out of the economy a few weeks ago, we were paying close to four dollars a gallon. I don't think a price of $2.55 a gallon would have hurt people are are now paying more than that too badly, particularly if they had known that some of that money would be going to fund the troops, instead of indirectly funding the ideology we were fighting.
You mention Reaganomics, but President Bush also tried stimulating the economy using the same methods. And it might have worked if not for the two wars he threw into the bargain.
The next president should reduce as much government spending as possible, but war is war, and it's either going to be paid with American tax dollars, or borrowed money from other countries who may not have our national interests in mind.
If "government is not the answer," then what is? Free market forces can't extricate our military from combat operations.
I went back and looked over my post to see if I blamed President Bush for the financial crisis, as you said. I didn't. I didn't even come close to it. Nor do I believe that the current financial fiasco is the result of the last eight years, and I did not infer that in my post. Guys like Buffet and Soros have said the roots go back almost thirty years.
I agree with you that President Bush could not have gone to war without the approval of Congress. And I will be the first to agree that Congress has, since the end of the Vietnam era, consistently abdicated it's authority (particularly in the areas of foreign policy and military policy) to the Executive branch, leaving us with what Professor and retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich calls "the Imperial Presidency." I am less concerned with what intelligence the Congress had or didn't have, and much more concerned with the manner in which that intelligence was filtered and vetted to sell the idea of war to the American public. But don't take my word for it. Read the memoirs of men from the President's own circle of advisors: Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill, Scott McClellen, to name a few.
I believe your labeling of me as a Bush-hater is extreme, and unqualified. It's easy to look at my personal opinion of this President's legacy and call me a "blamer." The problem is, it leaves no room for accountability. Do you believe that President Bush, as leader of the Executive Branch of government, should not be held accountable for any of the domestic or foreign policies that have gone so poorly in the last eight years? I am not necessarily speaking of anything so harsh as impeachment, or even criminal wrongdoing. But surely there must be room in your worldview for an accounting of his actions as our nation's leader?
Government may not be your answer, Jeff - but right now this sloppy, bumbling, error-prone democratic republic is the only game in town. Don't give up on it. Get involved. A guy with your grasp of history can only help.
Lar
First, let me apologize. I did not intend to label you. I was attempting to indicate the tone of your blog as I perceived it.
Second, I have not given up on this great Republic. Not by any stretch. I simply believe that less is more especially as it relates to domestic issues.
Bush's failures? Certainly there are many. Holding him accountable? On what level are you speaking? History will certainly be his judge but in any efforts of accountability, there needs to be a balance of the failures we have seen over several administrations of foreign and domestic policy that brought us here. What we see in the media today, (and what perhaps I mistakenly inferred from your blog) is simply too narrow and fixating on President Bush. As a conservative I certainly have my disappointments with the current administration however, in the broader historical context there is blame to be had in both parties not just for the financial crisis but also, more importantly for the issues in the middle east.
There are so many points and issues I certainly would like to discuss, I will keep my comments brief though. This is after all your blog not mine.
While I find areas we probably still disagree, I am encouraged that there are areas of agreement. I appreciate your point of view and the opportunity to comment.
Lar,
Would love to talk with you personally about your blog versus blog to blog responses.
I am in general agreement with Jeff on this one.
Post a Comment
<< Home