Whither the Conservative Movement? pg. 16
is also true that even the most earnest and ideological politician would be expected to frame their comments towards maximizing their electoral power. In other words, an earnest politician would act a great deal like a cynical one. It is a political argument, but one that doesn’t move the discussion at all.
If the second explanation is accepted, then it becomes necessary to determine in which setting the truth is being told. Were taxes cut to save the economy or were they cut because taxes are the people’s money? If taxes were cut to save the economy, then a very detailed justification would be needed that would marry specific tax cuts with specific weaknesses in the economy or with specific areas of growth afterwards. No such evaluation has been given.
The income tax cut was based on “giving you your money back” (GWBush, 2001a, quote V.A.3). The cut on dividend tax rates was justified as “fairness” (Bush, 2003b) and was that of the estate tax (Bush, 2000). These are not arguments appealing to economic analysis. Rather, it is an indication that the economic conditions have only given political cover for an ideological dispensation to cut taxes. This is born up by the President’s statement during the 2000 campaign when he said, “If there's a recession it's important to cut taxes to make sure the economy grows. . . . It's also important to cut the taxes where there's times of plenty…” (Bush, 2000).
The ideology seems clear. President Bush has stated he believes cutting taxes is the proper thing to do in pretty much every situation. He has given no indication that there is any legitimate function that must be fully funded via taxes. There is neither talk of sparing the weakest among us, as with Goldwater, nor of there being a heroic quality to those who fulfill their obligation to pay taxes, as with Reagan. Rather, there is only
Go on to Page 17
If the second explanation is accepted, then it becomes necessary to determine in which setting the truth is being told. Were taxes cut to save the economy or were they cut because taxes are the people’s money? If taxes were cut to save the economy, then a very detailed justification would be needed that would marry specific tax cuts with specific weaknesses in the economy or with specific areas of growth afterwards. No such evaluation has been given.
The income tax cut was based on “giving you your money back” (GWBush, 2001a, quote V.A.3). The cut on dividend tax rates was justified as “fairness” (Bush, 2003b) and was that of the estate tax (Bush, 2000). These are not arguments appealing to economic analysis. Rather, it is an indication that the economic conditions have only given political cover for an ideological dispensation to cut taxes. This is born up by the President’s statement during the 2000 campaign when he said, “If there's a recession it's important to cut taxes to make sure the economy grows. . . . It's also important to cut the taxes where there's times of plenty…” (Bush, 2000).
The ideology seems clear. President Bush has stated he believes cutting taxes is the proper thing to do in pretty much every situation. He has given no indication that there is any legitimate function that must be fully funded via taxes. There is neither talk of sparing the weakest among us, as with Goldwater, nor of there being a heroic quality to those who fulfill their obligation to pay taxes, as with Reagan. Rather, there is only
Go on to Page 17
© 2004 by Xpatriated Texan
<< Home