In today's column, he engages in a circular argument about whether a potential Democrat repeal of the Bushie "tax cuts for the rich" will help balance the budget. He's not so sure, but has never liked the tax cuts much anyway. But why not?
First of all, the budget deficits have, in fact, been coming down under Bush's tax cut regime, largely as a result of the savings and investment encouraged by lower taxes. It's a documented fact, although Samuelson can perhaps be forgiven for not noticing. Reporting of this fact has been virtually absent from the media, so perhaps he can't be faulted for not knowing about it, although, as a financial writer, he should be a bit better informed.
Second, what the hell is it with this "tax cuts for the rich" crap, which was, is, and always shall be a Democratic talking point and not even a "Known Fact"? I have yet to hear a single Democrat tell me just who "the rich" is/are along with numbers to back up the assertion. Without a number or a number range, I simply cannot buy that statement at all. "The rich" have become convenient whipping boys and girls for the party of Karl Marx because, well, they're convenient since you never have to define who they are. Probably the Democrats fear putting a realistic number on "the rich" because virtually all of them are in that category already and it would spoil the argument if they were outed. By avoiding an actual definition, however, they gain the appearance of moral superiority on this non-issue without having to pay the cost—something this party has always excelled in. Since Samuelson uses the same terminology, once again without a numerical citation, this renders his argument on this front, like the Democrats', fatuous and beneath consideration.
Third, Samuelson concludes this segment of his column with another non-statement that appears to have meaning, having unconsciously adopted Democratic terminology about government revenue that is precisely wrong:
Altogether, the tax cuts cost the government about $200 billion annually,
estimates the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.
Excuse me. A tax cut "costs" the government NOTHING. The government does not make money. It TAKES money from you and me. It spends OUR money. By lowering taxes, we are forcing the government, just like you and me, to live within its means.
By stating that a tax cut "costs" the government, a speaker or writer implies that the money involved is the government's to begin with. But that's wrong. It's ours, and if we want the government to do with less of our money so we can use more of it ourselves, that's our choice and the government will have to live with it. Stating that a tax cut "costs" the government is to assume that the government is actually entitled to this money. It is not. It's a shame that Samuelson perpetuates this error, once again falling into the not uncommon mistake of parrotting Democratic talking points.
Loaded with factual errors or omissions, not to mention a misuse of language—admittedly not uncommon in an age where language manipulation by the left has become an important tactic in the culture wars—Samuelson renders his anti-tax cut observations inoperative, as he has done in previous columns.
Ultimately, Samuelson's op-ed comes to the seemingly reasonable conclusion that neither party can do much about the current mess. But once again, that simply parrots the defeatist terminology of the Democrats who use it to keep themselves in office and out-of-control entitlements firmly in place. There's plenty of stuff either party can do to improve our economic situation, shrink the deficit, and roll back entitlements. But since this might jeopardize even more incumbent-safe seats in the next election, that's why nothing much is likely to transpire.
It's not that nothing can be done. It's just that the leadership of both parties is too chickenshit to do it. Which is something Samuelson can't quite grasp, even though he tries to get close.
No comments:
Post a Comment