|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
On June 12, the Daily Press published a letter from Rep.
Jo Ann Davis (R-1st), and I couldn’t have been more pleased with
what she had to say. She had attended a ceremony at the White House, where
president Bush signed the largest “tax relief” bill in “20 long years.” Now,
the fact that Davis was hobnobbing with the president delighted me no end,
but beyond that, I was impressed by her logic in support of the tax cut. She begins by saying that the cut is “good for America, as
well as the Commonwealth of Virginia.” I’m not sure whether she considers the
commonwealth something quite apart from America, or whether what’s good for
America is good for Virginia, which used to be part of America. Her point was
that, as a result of the tax cut, both America and Virginia will benefit in
four areas: rate reductions, child tax credits, marriage penalty relief, and
a phase-out of the “death tax, which used to be called the “estate” tax. But
the Republicans think death is a more horrific thing to tax than estates, and
they’re probably right. Davis says that all of this will save Virginia alone $28.6
billion over the next 10 years, and that is certainly good news. How this is
going to happen, however, she doesn’t say. What she does say is that all of
this will help families get out of debt and fuel our local economy, and
that’s certainly a positive effect. But, to keep her letter brief and upbeat,
Davis doesn’t get involved in a maze of facts that might clutter up her very
positive presentation. She doesn’t mention that lower tax rates won’t go into
effect until 2006, that the provisions relative to the estate tax and child
tax credits won’t become operative until 2010, or that the benefits for
married couples won’t emerge until 2008, by which time the whole new tax code
will probably be reviewed with the idea of sending us back to square one
because we simply can’t afford all these cuts that she and the president so
carefully worked out. My problem is that I’m a single taxpayer, and hence won’t
be affected by child tax credits and marriage penalty relief. Nor do I expect
to inherit some whopping amount of money or real estate on which I would have
to pay the death tax. What I’m left with is a minimal reduction in my tax
rate in 2006 and a tax rebate of up to $300. Yet this is what will allow me
to participate in Davis’s notion of “fueling our local economies.” Perhaps
now I can really get serious about that Jaguar that I’ve always wanted, or
maybe one of those expensive properties over in Port Anne. Both always seem
just out of reach to the tune of up to $300. In fact, salesmen and real
estate agents are always telling me that, if I could only come up with up to
$300 more, the car and the property would be mine. But every time the
gasoline bill or the electric bill comes, the elusive $300 seems to
disappear. However, these are the types of corporations that keep our
government in the right hands, so I really can’t complain, and especially now
that Davis and her cohorts will be sending me my check for up to $300
sometime in September. Then I can show the local economy what fueling is all
about! Indeed, Davis comes right out and says that I should enjoy more of my
money, and that I can use it in any way I choose, which I thought was mighty
generous of her. Davis then sails into those who oppose tax cuts as wanting
“the government to spend the extra tax funds on more government.” Again,
opting for brevity, she doesn’t explain what she means by “extra tax funds,”
nor is it clear what “more government” means, though I suppose she’s
referring to non-essential programs run by the federal government, such as
Head Start, The National Endowment for the Arts, environmental programs, and
the military. All of these have thankfully undergone cuts so that I can get
that jaguar. And in this Davis and I seem to be in the majority, since she
tells us that “people in the First District have overwhelming stated that
they have been overcharged by the government.” Oddly enough, she never got
such a statement from me. I must have been out of town when she was talking
to everyone else in the district. Or perhaps she took some scientific poll
that I missed. At any rate, we all know that politicians don’t go wonky with
figures and that we should take what they say to be gospel. So I believe her
and am delighted to be a member of such a marvelous, farsighted majority. In her fourth paragraph, however, Davis loses me. She writes,
“once the bills are paid and our spending priorities such as rebuilding our
military, strengthening Social Security, and paying down the debt are met, we
must return the change to the American people who earned it.” If all these
things are yet to be done, why am I getting that up to $300 so soon? If we
haven’t paid the bills or haven’t met our spending priorities, I probably
shouldn’t be eyeing that property over in Port Anne. If Social Security and
the military are going down the tubes, why am I the recipient of such
largess? Perhaps this is her way of
telling us that these tax breaks aren’t really going to occur until 2008 or
2010, by which time our priorities will have been dealt with, and we can
siphon off the “change” to the taxpayers who earned it. But I’m not here to debate minor points with my esteemed
representative. Rather, I am thankful for Davis’ letter of encouragement, and
I for one am going to take that up to $300 and run with it. Lewis Leadbeater is professor, emeritus, of Classical
Studies at the College of William and Mary.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
lewleadbeater.com Copyright 2002 All Rights Reserved
email: LWL@lewleadbeater.com |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||