Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Tax cut sounds good

Friday, Jan. 26, 2001 | 11:12 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

I HAVE SEEN the light. Alan Greenspan showed it to me. Where do I sign up for this tax cut thing?

I was feeling stupid Thursday morning so I spent some time in front of the television watching and listening to the chairman of the Federal Reserve talk rings around the U.S. Senate and anyone else who cared enough to pay attention. For a short time thereafter, I felt a little smarter but as is usually the case, the feeling subsided and it was back to "what did he really say?" reality.

There is little question that Chairman Greenspan knows exactly how difficult he is making it for the rest of us to decipher what he is saying when he packs his briefcase and heads to Capitol Hill for his periodic testimony. Lest he cause the financial markets to tumble and turn, he takes great pains to say an awful lot of nothing so that there can be no blame placed by those who win or lose billions following one of his speeches. It is quite humorous, I might add, to see the ordinarily "let's get to the point" senators try to pin the chairman down only to see him slip and slide right past what they once thought were clever questions. Some even announce their belief that he will not answer the question they are about to ask and then seem surprised when he obliges them by saying, "I don't want to answer that!"

What he did say, of course, has been the headline in every American newspaper since his words passed his lips. "Fed chief endorses tax cuts," said the Las Vegas Sun Thursday, and practically every other newspaper in the U.S. has followed suit. And why not? When Alan speaks, everyone else listens. And well they should.

A year ago when budget deficits had turned squarely into surpluses and it appeared that the future would continue to produce black ink, the Fed chairman expressed a cautionary note when asked by most of the same senators about the efficacy of a tax cut. Looking back and listening to his explanation of the difference between then and now, Mr. Chairman said that the evidence was now mounted and practically irrefutable that there would be sufficient tax revenues flowing toward Washington, D.C., to not only pay down and off the national debt -- his No. 1 priority -- but also to invest in a number of alternatives as Congress sees fit.

When asked many months ago there was no reason to believe that both the debt could be retired and the retired could be made more comfortable through a tax cut because there was no certainty the money to do both would be there. Today, however, the man who runs the money believes there is an adequate supply to do both. That testimony was music to many politicians' ears as well as the new resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. What wasn't true and, therefore, wasn't feasible nor responsible just a few months ago was all of a sudden sound and high up on the recommended list for fiscal action.

That's good enough for me. I don't need to listen to the rest of the caution that Mr. Greenspan managed to get on the record before the senators shouted out with glee. There was enough for a tax cut and, even though he refused to take sides on the issue of just how large the cut should be and to whom it should flow, the master had spoken and there was nothing left to be said.

I listened like most Americans and immediately did the math. Cutting my taxes by just 10 percentage points makes a pretty good dent in my tax bill. I am for that. Reducing even further the capital gains rate makes a whole lot of sense -- and dollars -- for someone like me. I am for that, too. And getting rid of the estate taxes, like our president has said he wants to do, makes so much sense that I have already decided which of the tax lawyers and accountants I want to remove from the payroll. I am for that in a big way.

Even though I didn't vote for the man, I am beginning to like the way this tax cut thing sounds. It makes Gov. Kenny Guinn's commitment not to raise taxes seem kind of chintzy. Come on Kenny, what about a tax cut for us here at home?

Of course, there is always the other side of the coin if anyone wants to look there. Chairman Greenspan said there is enough money for Congress to make the kind of investments it deems appropriate and still pay off the national debt. What happens if a year from now he goes to Congress with yet another set of changed circumstances? Figures, let's say, that suggest that a tax cut is no longer viable and paying off the debt may no longer be possible in any reasonable time frame. Don't ask me for the money back because by that time it will be gone!

And what if those same changed circumstances cause Nevada to tighten its already tight belt because we can no longer raise the taxes we need to pay teachers, build classrooms and otherwise pay for the fastest growing state in the nation? What do we do then? Remember, don't ask me for the money back.

I have never favored giving the politicians more than they need to carry out the mandate of the people, but I have always favored giving them enough to do the job right. In Nevada, our governor doesn't want to raise our taxes even though we rank near the bottom of practically every list that defines quality of life in this fastest growing state in the Union. It may turn out that he can't fix what ails us without asking us to pay the price. How is he going to do that when President Bush is lowering our tax burden?

Simply put, what if life doesn't work out as planned? Will the Congress have the strength it needs to raise our tax bills in the face of elections or will we learn to live with far less than the least among us needs to make ends meet? These questions are designed only to make us think, but not so much that we would discount what Chairman Greenspan said about cutting taxes or even taking the time to consider the consequences.

So let's get cracking on those cuts. We can always worry about tomorrow another time.

archive