-Caveat Lector-

Euphorian spotted this on the Guardian Unlimited site and thought you should see it.

To see this story with its related links on the Guardian Unlimited site, go to 
http://www.guardian.co.uk

Who's Bush going to war with? The poor
Charlotte Denny
Sunday January 12 2003
The Observer


We are the masters now, is the message coming loud and clear from the Republicans - 
not just in foreign policy but also when it comes to domestic politics.

On the campaign trail two years ago, George Bush promised a new world of compassionate 
conservatism. But, judging by last week's much-hyped tax cut plan, it is the rich Mr 
Bush feels compassion towards.

According to independent analysis, the top 1% of taxpayers will be $89,000 a year 
better off as a result, while the average middle class American will see just $265 cut 
off his/her tax bill. President Bush brands critics of his tax cut plan as exponents 
of class warfare. Class warfare it certainly is - conducted by the White House on 
behalf of the richest group of Americans.

The Republicans argue that the centrepiece of the plan - the abolition of taxes on 
dividends - will help the whole economy by reviving the battered stock prices and 
providing money for firms to invest.

In the United States the shares market plays the same role as the housing market does 
in Britain in supporting consumer spending. But most of the benefits of the 
president's package will go to the tiny group of rich citizens who hold shares 
directly.

As in Britain, most American households own shares through pension funds, which are 
already exempt from tax. The independent Tax Policy Centre estimates that 40% of the 
$360bn cost to the American treasury over the next 10 years will be captured by the 
wealthiest 1% of taxpayers.

Because most institutions buying and selling shares will not benefit from the plan, 
the boost to prices will be less than the administration hoped for. That could be a 
blessing in disguise - the economy is still working through the consequences of the 
last share market bubble and the enormous overhang of investment capital it created.

The last thing Wall Street needs now is a White House-sponsored bubble to follow the 
dotcom boom.

As Stephen Lewis of Monument Securities has pointed out, investment spending is 
depressed because companies are still trying to deal with the hangover from the last 
party. Encouraging a further bout of overinvestment is not likely to make capital 
spending profitable again.

The market appears to have already worked this out. Share prices soared ahead of the 
president's heavily trailed plan, but by the time Mr Bush began speaking the euphoria 
had already worn off.

Over the week the widest index of American share prices, the S&P 500, rose a 
measly 2.5% - well below the 10% increase the administration had hoped for.

If share prices are unlikely to provide the panacea for faltering confidence the 
administration is looking for, their other justification for the plan - that it will 
provide a direct fiscal boost - also seems flawed.

Standard Keynesian economics recommends letting borrowing rise when the economy is 
weak. The US economy needs help now, but most of the benefits of this package will 
start to take effect in a few years' time and will simply add to the already 
ballooning deficit.In addition, most of the money is being handed back to the rich who 
are much more likely to sit on the extra dosh than they are to spend it.

Karl Rove, Mr Bush's political mastermind, apparently persuaded him at the last minute 
that, rather than going for a refund on half of the dividend tax, he should go for the 
whole hog, doubling the cost of the package at a stroke. The reasoning appears to have 
been nakedly political: it puts Democrats in Congress in a difficult position by 
forcing them to vote against the package and thereby gain a reputation for being 
against giving people's money back to them. This is still a country which - even after 
the September 11 attacks - still distrusts what it calls "big" government.

This is a return to the Reaganite sup ply-side theories which the current president's 
father once derided as "voodoo economics". The fundamentalist core of the Republican 
party has never stopped believing that cutting taxes is the route to growth, never 
mind if the budget deficit balloons as a result. The consequences are more likely to 
be negative for growth - a larger structural deficit that will crowd out private 
investment and push up long-term interest rates.

Mr Rove may have misjudged the appetite of Americans for this brand of happy-clappy 
economics. Even some rightwing Republicans in Congress are worried that the plan will 
cause long-term deterioration in the budget position, while moderate Republicans are 
alarmed by its egregious redistribution to the rich.

Moreover, it is a risky political and economic move at a time when Mr Bush is 
considering a war in the Middle East which could have devastating consequences for the 
US and the other major economies of the west.

The Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington estimates there is a 
one in 10 chance of a disastrous outcome in the Middle East: Saddam Hussein 
deliberately destroys Iraq's oil reserves and damages neighbouring countries' fields; 
the attack sparks years of Arab hostility to America; or the war takes much longer 
than military planners anticipate.

Using the CSIS's scenarios of possible outcomes of an attack, Oxford Economic 
Forecasting and Macroeconomic Advisers have produced some alarming estimates of the 
consequences for the US and the world economy*. In the worst-case scenario, which CSIS 
estimates at 5-10% likelihood, OEF and MA believe oil prices could hit $80 a barrel, 
sending the US economy back into recession this year and pushing up unemployment to 
7.5%.

Even in the intermediate scenario - for which the CSIS estimates the probability at 
30-40% - in which the attack on Iraq proves more prolonged or difficult than expected, 
shattered confidence is likely to drag down the economy for most of this year.

If either scenario comes to pass, Mr Bush will need all the fiscal firepower he can 
lay his hands on. He may regret already having pushed the budget into deficit for an 
uncertain reward.

What last week's gamble does reveal is a wide divergence in economic approaches. In 
Britain and Europe, fiscal conservatism is the new orthodoxy for left and right.

Even as Mr Bush was announcing his plans for a ballooning budget deficit, the European 
commission was warning large member states of the EU to get their deficits under 
control.

In Britain, Gordon Brown may be derided by the left for his long love affair with 
prudence but he relishes his reputation as the iron chancellor. Although his more 
flexible fiscal rules allow him to borrow in bad times, the underlying message is 
that, in the long term, governments should not push current spending costs on to 
future generations.

The return to supply-side economics in America will be watched with particular 
interest in Britain, where Labour is about to find out if voters will pay more tax for 
better public services. Some commentators believe that even America's tax-shy 
electorate would have been prepared to pay more for national security after the 
September 11 attacks. Instead, the president is taking an enormous gamble with the 
economy -and with his political future.

*After an Attack on Iraq: The Economic Consequences.
Centre for Strategic and International Studies

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to