Friday, April 18, 2003

I guess it's time to turn up the heat....today we talk about the predictable stance of Sen. Chafee on tax cuts. I reference a recent Projo article about a visit from Hector V. Barreto, administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration. Let's start with a quote:

"Although members of the regional and local SBA offices were happy to hear Barreto's message, Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee is one of four senators who have refused to support the cuts if they are more than $350 billion.
'The senator would hope that the $350 billion would include the small-business provisions,' said Stephen Horuahan, press secretary for Chafee. 'He feels that the tax cut itself should be very targeted . . . because he's concerned about the deficit.'

This is a classic example of the good Senator believing that it is incumbent upon the tax-payer to make up for any spending deficit rather than the responsibility of the Senate and House to pass spending bills which don't run deficits. In other words, he has forgotten that it is OUR money, the taxpayer's, not the Government's. Besides, the budget deficit argument is a straw dog. If they, the Senate or House, really cared about it, they'd reign in their spending. The issue is also about fundamental fairness. The majority of this tax cut is a reduction in the Dividend taxes and is an attempt to address the inequity of the well chronicled double taxation on dividends. But, since it is the PERCEPTION that only the rich will benefit, and not the retirees and others who currently have money in the stock market, the demogoguery against "THE RICH" is being played to the hilt. Notice Sen. Chafee's "concern" for small businesses and his Clintonian use of the phrase "targeted tax cut". I also share his concern for small-businesses, and hope that his concern is consistent with past stances on issues such as Health Care and the minimum wage. (I'll have to look into the latter two...) As usual, his perspective on this issue is at odds with the majority of his party, and is intellectually dishonest. He plays the "evil Rich" game, though only sublty, but jumps into the bugdet deficit babble with both feet. It is the U.S. government which should learn to live with less, not the U.S. citizenry.

No comments: