Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, February 24, 1993 TAG: 9302240425
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
MESSAGE TO CLINTON: `NO WAY, WE WON'T PAY'
PRESIDENT Clinton has proposed the biggest tax increase in history, and, in perhaps the biggest presidential flimflam yet, he contends that he is slashing the deficit by cutting spending in some categories and advocating new spending in others. This is like proposing to reduce your credit-card bill by not spending $200 at your favorite department store - then spending $200 dining out.President Clinton says he wants to cut government spending by about $250 billion, while adding government programs that cost nearly the same amount. He claims the new revenue - additional money extracted from those making over $30,000 a year - will be used for "investment." This simply means more will be spent on resurrecting old government programs with a track record of failure - like job training and bridge repairs. It is a more sophisticated approach than welfare, but unless people get real jobs in real businesses, they remain on the government payroll, which means the taxpayers still subsidize them.
The president's proposal presumes, with no historical evidence to prove it, that Congress will use any new revenue to reduce the deficit.
Of the last four big tax increases - in Since 1947, every $1 in new taxes has resulted in $1.59 of additional spending, according to the Joint Economic Committee. Giving Congress additional funds is like giving an alcoholic a bottle of booze, hoping he has the willpower not to drink it.
The 1980s were a fraud, the president contends. Are 18 million new jobs created by the private sector, which had more money to invest because of lower taxes, fraudulent? Presidents from Herbert Hoover to George Bush imposed substantial tax increases and the economy suffered every time. Better models would be John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, both of whom cut marginal tax rates, leading to record economic expansions.
If President Clinton attacked waste in government, rather than the overstressed wallets of taxpayers, who already work more than four months of every year just to pay their tax bills, he would have bipartisan support and achieve a significant victory over deficit spending. The Government Accounting Office has identified more than $180 billion of government waste. The House Government Operations Committee has cataloged $300 billion of waste. Why is the president talking about "sacrifice" and "contribution" when the subject ought to be waste?
Even adjusted for inflation, federal spending is more than 40 percent higher today than in 1980. Higher taxes on corporations, savers and investors will shut off access to new capital and could destroy jobs and reduce our international competitiveness. Democrats love to tax corporations. The president wants to raise the corporate rate to 36 percent for those companies earning more than $10 million taxable income annually. He forgets that corporations, if they are to continue to make profits (the only reason they exist), must either raise prices or reduce costs by laying off workers when faced with higher costs, which higher taxes will bring.
Recall what happened as part of the 1990 budget agreement when yachts were hit with a luxury tax. Fewer boats were purchased because the price increased, so yacht makers laid off workers, who had to apply for unemployment compensation. That effectively eliminated the goal of the higher tax.
The overly taxed American people should emulate their president in his declared war on the deficit and his definition of patriotism. When Bill Clinton had an opportunity to demonstrate his patriotism in the traditional way, he avoided the draft and protested against the military and his country while on foreign soil. "Hell no, we won't go," his like-minded friends chanted nearly 30 years ago.
Now, those of us who believe the patriotic thing to do is to force our government to live within our means should coin another phrase and refuse to send another dollar above what we are now paying until government makes real and substantial reductions in spending. We should chant, "No way, we won't pay." Los Angeles Times Syndicate