Dave Zweifel is an editor of The Capital Times which makes him a professional liberal. Today's editorial is entitled Tax cuts for rich not doing the trick. This is professional liberal writing at its best. Unlike angry longwinded mootbat rants, Editor Dave hits every correct step in the sequence of liberal persuasion. Admire what he has produced.
1. Find something to complain about.
The president and his money people are still insisting that his tax cuts are doing wonders for the economy, therefore we should keep them and do away with the estate tax while we're at it.2. Downplay the positive and accentuate the negative.
Because the budget deficit projections have been lowered a bit, the Bushies are hanging their hats on that "good" news, ignoring, of course, the simple fact that the mountain of debt is still setting a national record.3. Criticize the other side for perfectly acceptable for liberal behavior.
Some day the American taxpayers are going to have to pay the piper, but no one in this administration is willing to even admit that obvious truism. It boggles the mind how so-called conservatives are so willing to spend more than they take in. It flies in the face of what they've stood for throughout American political history.4. Assume professors and journalists are smarter than business people.
That leads me to a piece I've been saving that was written for the New York Times by noted economist Robert H. Frank of Cornell University. In it, Frank makes a strong case that the cuts made by Bush and his congressional colleagues are simply misdirected and counterproductive.5. Imply that the wealthy don’t care about workers.
The president then argued - and still does - that even though the cuts were disproportionately higher for the wealthy, the wealthy would turn around and invest it in their businesses and hire more workers.6. Imply that the wealthy care only about profit.
Frank disputed that theory, pointing out that giving more money to owners won't necessarily entice them to hire. What matters in hiring is whether it has the potential to increase a business's profits. If the output of additional workers can be sold for at least enough to cover their salaries, they should be hired; otherwise not. If this criterion is met, Frank wrote, hiring extra workers makes economic sense, no matter how poor a business owner might be.7. Imply that the wealthy will hoard money unless there is profit to be made.
Conversely, if the criterion is not satisfied, hiring makes no economic sense, even for billionaire owners. Consequently, the after-tax personal incomes of business owners are irrelevant for hiring decisions.8. Plant the idea its not who owns the money, it’s who needs the money.
What most economists argue, Frank continued, is that tax cuts make a much bigger difference if they are directed at middle and low-income families. Unlike cuts for the wealthy, which go to people who already have most everything they need, money to average earning families stimulates immediate new spending.9. Nurture the idea that money is not to be owned. Money is for spending.
"And their additional spending would have been largely for products made by domestic businesses - which would have led, in turn, to increased employment," he argued.10. Create fear that hoarded money threatens children and public safety.
Plus, grants to cash-starved states and local governments - instead of massive tax cuts - would have prevented layoffs of teachers and police officers and created yet more jobs.11. Create the illusion defeating terrorism won’t keep children safe and healthy.
Instead we have an unpopular war on our hands that's consuming more than a billion dollars a week, a national debt approaching $8 trillion, local and state governments cutting services, and enormous problems in everything from health care to education that we can't afford to fix.12. Conclude by reminding the gullible who the real threat is. (It's Busssshhhh)
That's the gift this administration has given us.Absolutely Brilliant - if you like style over substance.
