Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Odd time for tax cuts

Friday, Jan. 10, 2003 | 9:30 a.m.

HEY, MR. TREASURY MAN, make sure you spell my name right on that check. I don't want to take the risk of returning it to maker.

That is about as close as I can come to admitting defeat on this whole tax cut thing because the writing is on the wall, in the cards and soon to be on the billions of dollars of checks that the U.S. Treasury will be writing to taxpayers in the next few months.

That doesn't mean I am admitting that I have been wrong about the timing, need and advisability of hundreds of billions of dollars of revenues flowing back to the people from whence they came, only that I can recognize a losing fight when I am in it.

Besides, losing this one is winning really big for me and mine so I am probably better off shutting my mouth and waiting for the check to clear. After all, why should I be so concerned for the other fellow when it seems so obvious that the guy I am worrying about doesn't feel the same way?

President George W. Bush has been very clever in this latest round of tax-cutting proposals because he has, as the pundits keep saying, managed to put something in there for everyone, especially the wealthy and those of lesser means who are in a family way.

The fact that the president surprised some experts by asking for such a big raid on the Treasury is a testament to his political acumen. Even if he has to negotiate with Congress for a lesser amount, he and the people who are lining up for refunds still win. And he can blame the legislative branch (read that objecting Democrats with a McCain and a Chafee thrown in for bipartisan measure), for making the expected windfall that much smaller.

Either way President Bush wins on this one, just in time for the voters to cash their checks on the way to the 2004 presidential election.

So, that's the cynical side of me talking. Is there another reason to question the advisability of giving back $600 billion over the next decade, as well as the further implementation of the $1.3 trillion already signed into law?

I think so. And that reason is associated with words like prudence, caution, conservatism and diligence. In short, is this really the best time in the history of the United States to be giving back so much money?

Those who favor this tax cut point to the need to jump-start our very sluggish economy. They talk about President John F. Kennedy lowering taxes to get us out of a recession. They point to President Ronald Reagan cutting taxes to lift our economy out of the hole coupled with sky-high interest rates in the early 1980s.

In Kennedy's case, that was more than 40 years ago when there was no hot war looming and tax rates were at astronomical levels. Reagan's cuts got us moving again, to be sure, but by the time the decade was done, we owed more money than ever and deficit spending was a matter of course.

Give him credit or don't, the fact remains that President Bill Clinton's raising the taxes on the wealthiest among us helped put us in black ink by creating millions of new jobs and billions of surpluses.

The point is that time and circumstance dictates the solution to economic woe more than any pre-set formula. It may be necessary for the government to get tax monies back into the hands of Americans who will spend it on the kinds of goods that will get our economy moving again. Most experts, whether for political reasons or not, agree that a stimulus now would be a good thing.

I question, though, whether the kind of tax cuts being proposed by the president are necessary in light of the circumstances in which we find ourselves today. By that I mean a looming war in Iraq, a trouble spot in North Korea, an elusive Osama bin Laden looking to do harm wherever and whenever he can, and a host of other evildoers looking for the opportunity to destroy that which defines us as Americans.

How many times have you heard the politicians say that we should run our government the way Americans run their homes? If that is true, and there is merit in that approach, what prudent and responsible American would spend his life savings in the face of economic uncertainty?

If we need a jump-start, doesn't it make sense to put the money, however many hundreds of billions that might be, in the hands of those with the greatest need who will spend it with the immediacy required?

Giving the money to me and mine is a nice gesture, but I don't need it as much as the fellow who is barely making it and who will spend the money on shoes and food and transportation -- most of which is made in America. The best I might do is sock mine away or spend it on something else I don't need and which won't help our economy at home.

There, I have said my piece. Now I will join the rest of the lemmings in line at the pay window. Just remember one thing, Mr. Treasury man, if all doesn't go as planned and you need cash in a hurry, don't be so quick to call on me.

Once I cash that check, I will be just like the rest of my fellow Americans. Reluctant to return it and remembering, for a long time and not very kindly, those who made me give it back. But what prudent and responsible American would spend his life savings in the face of economic uncertainty?