-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.33/pageone.html <A HREF="http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.33/pageone.html">Laissez Faire City Times - Volume 3 Issue 33</A> ----- Laissez Faire City Times Aug. 23, 1999 - Volume 3, Issue 33 Editor & Chief: Emile Zola ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tax Talk: Much Ado About Nothing by Sunni Maravillosa How can one tell when it�s getting close to election time in the United States? Talk of cutting taxes reaches fever pitch among the Beltway baboons. And along with that comes the posturing and declaiming of the two parties� members, in order to highlight the Deep and Meaningful Differences between the "Grossly Out-of-touch Party" and the "Demagogues". Sure enough, with the testing of the presidential waters by various members of each party, we have the appearance of genuine differences between the donkeys and elephants on the issue of taxes. This year, perhaps in an effort to get some attention from the increasingly politics-weary public, there�s a new twist on the tale: a "budget surplus" that needs to be dealt with. Predictably, the Republicrats are trumpeting for the extra to be returned to the taxpayers (but wait, there�s a catch), and the Demopublicans are braying that the funds should be used to shore up Medicare and Socialist (In)Security. And, with just as much p redictability, various thinkers among the pro-freedom movement have analyzed and proselytized on the best course of action to take. Various strategies have been recommended, which naturally suggests the question: Is there a "most-liberty-oriented" approach in this situation? The Taxes-Are-Immoral Argument Some advocate the tax cut as the best approach, for various reasons. Perhaps the most common reason given by friends of liberty is that all taxes are immoral, and therefore the proper course is to scale back on that immorality as much as possible. According to this argument, any tax cut is a step in the right direction, because it means that individuals are more likely to be able to keep more of their earnings for their own use. The Fiscal Responsibility Argument Another argument relies less on philosophical grounds, and more on pragmatic reasoning. Studies have shown that the state never has the discipline to cut spending, except�sometimes�in times of fiscal crisis. Given that history, it makes sense to limit the income available to the state�to try to impose some control at the outset rather than when it�s too late. The idea is that by cutting taxes, spending will also be reduced, and this will impose more fiscal responsibility. However, in reality, while that might happen in the short term (read: about one nanosecond), the evidence is strongly against such an outcome; Congress has yet to meet a project it didn�t like, nor a debt that wasn�t justified by some lofty goal. The Burden-to-Future-Generations Argument While both of these positions have merit, it�s possible to take another view: one result of cutting taxes now is that the burden of payment will be carried farther into the future, laying the burden of current spending at the feet of our grandchildren and beyond. Where�s the morality in that? This leads to the suggestion offered by some that cutting taxes now is not freedom-friendly, either or in the long run. While it is true, some proponents of this view admit, that taxes are immoral, to cut them and leave others with debts we�ve accumulated is more immoral. And while we cannot go back in time and change the facts relating to the current national debt situation, that is insufficient justification for continuing intergenerational theft schemes such as Socialist (In)Security in perpetuity. Better to pay our own way (better yet to eliminate them in favor of free-market alternatives, but the donkeys and elephants aren�t going to be doing that any time soon), so that the national debt is reduced. With enough diligence at that Herculean task, even our generation might breathe a little freer before it fades completely into dust. By paying for our�and past generations��bill now, we also reduce the amount of interest accruing on past fiscal foolishness, freeing future Americans to take a more responsible path. And the Winner Is� Which option is best? Or, perhaps the question should be amended to, "which option is best for the current situation?", because it�s possible that one strategy is better given certain conditions, while another is better under other conditions. I suppose it is possible to do nothing differently, and to let that "surplus" continue to grow and earn interest for some future grand use, but I haven�t heard any pro-liberty organizations or individuals propose such a tactic. [This of course, leaves aside the issue whether the alleged "surplus" is anything other than accounting gimmickry and political fudge surrounding Social Security accounting.�Zola] So, we have a "surplus" of funds, and something "must" be done about this. The Republicrats� compromise is estimated at a $792 billion tax cut. The "catch" I mentioned above is actually two major catches. The plan is supposed to go into effect over ten years beginning in 2003, making it impossible to put any meaningful number on the projected total dollar value of the cut. More importantly, to get moderates to support the bill, it has a provision specifying that the tax cuts for each year will not go into effect unless there�s been an "appropriate" reduction in the national debt. Clinton has said that he will veto any tax cut over $300 billion, claiming that the voters aren�t interested in a tax cut (several polls are reporting this). Instead, he says, the people want this surplus to be directed toward propping up Medicare and Socialist (In)Security (has anyone besides me noticed that polls rarely ask�or if they do, they rarely report the answers�why a respondent has the opinion given?). Of course, that justification fits nicely into his plan� Mental Masturbation My apologies, dear reader. I was starting to go on as if any of this preaching and posturing I was reporting really means anything. Even the rhetoric the pro-freedom folks are trotting out on this one provides nothing more than fodder for the continual "how do we get there from here?" debate. There are no winners here. You see, all of this is "much ado about nothing" because that�s exactly what it all amounts to. Nothing. Even less than smoke and mirrors�which are, after all, real things that can be seen and smelled or touched. The talk of what to do about the surplus is mind candy�mental masturbation�by those who want you to believe that there�s a difference between the two parties. That some people who are concerned about freedom have chimed in doesn�t change that fact; it shows either that they are gullible enough to believe that this time, Congress really does want to Do Good (and we would do well to heed Thoreau in such cases), or they are using it as foreplay for their own mental masturbation. While I�m somewhat sympathetic to their messages, basing arguments on the vac uous mouthings of the minions of the state gives the statists a claim to seriousness I�d just as soon they not receive. Unfortunately, it doesn�t matter if we who value our freedom take them seriously or not. The mainstream citizen, lulled by CNN�s and The Wall Street Journal�s croonings on the subject, will most likely accept this cloud of economic cotton candy as a Real Debate on The Issues that Matter, and so it will continue to spew until the presidential election. A few individuals might fire a few brain synapses, and realize that it�s the same dance, different dress, and become part of what the mainstream media call the "apathetic voter." In part because that "why" question isn�t asked by the pollsters, what is termed apathy is probably a growing disgust and cynicism, coupled with feelings of helplessness at not knowing a better way. If the think-tank thinkers and academics really wanted to get things moving for liberty, cutting down on the ivory-tower output and writing, and attempting to reach this growing segment of American society, would be a huge step toward that end. Balanced Budgets and Other Delusions If you�re thinking, "But Sunni, this isn�t nothing! It truly does matter how those surplus funds are used!", I would like to remind you of something: the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. Remember that? That legislation made a balanced budget required by law. This law was passed way back in the 80s, when Reagan was president. Do you see today�s congresscritters acting as if they give a damn about that law? Yet that law was designed to hold their feet to the fire�to force Congress to be more efficient with America�s purse than it had been. No one else is vested with that power. And it gets ignored with every session. In doing so, we see how much respect our vaunted lawmakers have for the law. It�s something for "we, the sheeple" to concern ourselves with, not them. Actually, that�s a little unfair. Some politicians paid attention to GRH. They noticed that it was written to take effect in the future�when the Congress that passed it would no longer exist, and therefore wouldn�t have to live with its unpleasant consequences. That neat little trick is being repeated with the Republicrats� so-called tax cut now awaiting the Executive Lawbreaker�s axe. How much respect do you think a future Congress is going to give a bill that�s passed now? How different do you think the donkeys and elephants are, knowing that all of them know when the proposed cuts would begin to take effect, and yet are still arguing about it as if it means anything today? My mom used to say to her four kids, "There can�t be a fight if someone chooses not to fight." All of this arguing about the surplus is simply an agreement to fight, to stage a show that continues the pretense that American politics as currently practiced actually means something. Besides, with a veto looming�which won�t be overturned�both sides of the American one-party system can crank up the arguing all they want, and it won�t matter. They get rhetorical mileage now with no vote-costing painful economic effects later. Arguments about nothing, which will come to nothing, and cost nothing: if only it were just "a midsummer night�s dream." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sunni Maravillosa is a psychologist and web mistress for the Liberty Round Table (URL http://home.lrt.org/ ). -30- from The Laissez Faire City Times, Vol 3, No 33, August 23, 1999 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Published by Laissez Faire City Netcasting Group, Inc. Copyright 1998 - Trademark Registered with LFC Public Registrar All Rights Reserved ----- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections 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, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== 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
