[MLUG - DISCUSSION] Arizona Daily Star Editorial

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

The article below inspired me to make the following comments:

For those of you who prefer to pay lower federal income taxes (don't we 
all?), I have a question:  Suppose I am a candidate for the US Presidency. 
How would you react if I were to promise that I, as President, would 
eliminate federal income taxes?  There would be zero income tax, nada, 
none.  If you had any sense, you would ask me where I might cut spending 
in order to cope with the revenue shortfall.  I would say that I will not 
cut spending, not at all.  How would you react?  Would you be pleased? 
Maybe you'd ask me where I intend to get the money without the income tax 
revenue.  Suppose I were to tell you that I would do two things:  (1) 
print more money, and (2) increase the deficit/debt.  Would you still be 
happy?  Not if you had any sense.  Nobelist Milton Friedman is quoted 
below as having said, "A tax cut that adds to the deficit today is just a 
tax hike on future taxpayers."  I would add the qualifier, "if our 
civilization, as we know it, is to survive."  Think about it.  Where 
should the line be drawn?  How much of a deficit is acceptable?  --Mike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/dailystar/41363.php

Arizona Daily Star
October 3, 2004

Editorial Page

Elect Kerry

Four years ago, George W. Bush became president of a thriving America. Not 
only had his predecessor eliminated the national deficit, he had left the 
new president a $236 billion budget surplus. Unemployment was at a record 
low of 4 percent. The nation was not at war. The current president's 
policies have had a negative impact on each of these areas. We believe 
John Kerry can reverse that trend, and we endorse him for president.

In less than four years, President Bush, the avowed conservative, turned a 
record surplus into a record deficit, now estimated at $422 billion. 
During the same period, the unemployment rate rose to 6 percent and then 
improved a bit, but this summer, 5.4 percent of the work force was still 
unemployed.

The peace and prosperity of the Clinton administration evolved, under 
President Bush, to a falsely justified war and an economy that declined 
sharply and is barely staggering back to solvency - though even that 
faltering solvency is seriously jeopardized by impractical tax cuts for 
which our children will pay dearly.

Economist Milton Friedman has observed, with considerable wisdom, "A tax 
cut that adds to the deficit today is just a tax hike on future 
taxpayers."

It is clear that a change is needed. We believe the policies and 
management style that Kerry represents offer more hope than the current 
administration's stubborn allegiance to isolationist rhetoric, the 
unjustified use of military force and economic policies that provide 
instant gratification to some and long-term danger to the nation as a 
whole.

For many voters, unfortunately, the election is essentially a personality 
contest. People tend to regard the candidates the way they do celebrities. 
And while that is always a mistake, this year it would be a particularly 
egregious mistake to vote without examining closely the leadership 
qualities and philosophical underpinnings of each presidential hopeful.

Kerry demonstrated his leadership abilities, as well as his fidelity to 
principle, with his bravery during the Vietnam War and with the dissent 
that he expressed when he returned home. That dissent took as much courage 
as - maybe more than - the young John Adams' decision some 250 years ago 
to take on the legal defense of British soldiers who had fired on a Boston 
mob that had been pelting them with rocks.

The domestic and international problems facing Bush are not likely to 
vanish if Kerry is elected, but Kerry's experience in the Senate - 
especially his time on the Foreign Relations Committee - makes him better 
prepared to move the nation toward achievable goals and stronger 
international coalitions.

President Bush had never served in a state legislature or either house of 
Congress before he was elected. His only preparation for the job had been 
six years as governor of Texas and social contact with his father's 
friends and associates. The effects of this shallow background, coupled 
with a simplistic world view, can be seen in the deadly chaos of Iraq, the 
decline of U.S. prestige abroad and impending domestic crises in health 
care and Social Security.

What is needed now is not only a realistic strategy for addressing changes 
but a manager who can assemble a team to achieve them. Kerry's campaign 
has been working closely with former President Clinton and officials in 
his administration. Unlike President Bush, these are individuals with a 
proven track record of creating jobs, eradicating deficits and promoting 
prosperity in a peacetime economy.

President Bush's economic policies - cut taxes and regulation and let free 
markets develop unrestrained by government regulation - would likely 
create wealth, but for a very limited segment of society. The people who 
prosper from the debt service the government pays, as well as highly 
skilled workers, will do well.

We cannot say the same for the vast middle class, for those whose jobs 
have been outsourced and those for whom the Bush tax cuts - though they 
are politically attractive - are a pittance. And for that enormous 
population that still cannot afford health insurance, or for seniors whose 
Medicare premiums just went up 17 percent, the tax cuts are useless.

Come January, either Bush or Kerry will have to address the deteriorating 
mess in Iraq as well as the deficit and the approaching drain on the 
Social Security trust from baby boomers reaching retirement age.

And just as there is no evidence that Bush ever accepted the predictions 
of his intelligence and security experts with respect to Iraq, there is 
nothing to suggest that he will reverse his politically opportunistic tax 
cuts.

Kerry would deal with taxes more realistically, increasing rates but only 
for those earning at least $200,000 a year.

President Bush had four years to prove himself and did poorly. It is time 
to elect a president with a broader understanding of international affairs 
and a greater concern for the welfare of those living on slender incomes. 
Elect John Kerry.
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion