 |
More of the same Cut, and Then Cut Some MoreBy Rick Horowitz
Mr. Steve Forbes
I owe you an apology. I like to think of myself as a fair person, someone who treats other people in a kind and reasonable manner. Naturally, being in the line of work I'm in (professional smart aleck, amateur nag), there are times when I stray from that approach just a bit. But even when I stray, I try to make sure that I'm still fair, which means more than simply being able to take it as well as dish it out. It also means that when I dish it out, I need to be sure I'm dishing it out to the proper...dishee. And that's why I'm writing you this letter: I've just gotten my first peek at President Bush's new budget plan, and I think I may have misdished you. I'm hardly the only one who's done it -- actually, I've had plenty of company -- but the way I look at it, that doesn't get me off the hook. At some point, a person has to take responsibility for his own actions. You see, for years now -- all the way back to the start of the 2000 presidential campaign -- I've been blaming you for George Bush's preoccupation with tax cuts. (I say "preoccupation" -- if I weren't such a kind and reasonable person, I'd probably say "obsession," but we'll let that slide, OK?) Anyway, the conventional wisdom going into that campaign was that you were going to be Gov. Bush's toughest opponent in the Republican primaries. And that the people who vote in Republican primaries would mostly be the true believers. And that the biggest issue for the true believers was cutting taxes. And that if he didn't keep up with you when it came to cutting taxes, Mr. Bush could find himself losing the true believers, which would almost certainly mean losing the nomination. Which is why -- or so the conventional wisdom had it -- Mr. Bush decided to make a huge tax cut a centerpiece of his own campaign; he was trying to neutralize you. Which he certainly did. (No offense.) The way things turned out, of course, Mr. Bush's strongest challenger wasn't you at all; it was John McCain, who thought a huge tax cut was a ridiculous idea -- which got him nowhere at all with the true believers. Mr. Bush sewed up the nomination and -- Well, you know the rest of the story. (I'll bet you still hear "Hail to the Chief" in your dreams. Sorry.) Here's the thing, though: We all thought it was just a tactic -- Mr. Bush's tax cut, I mean. We all thought it was just something to say to get himself elected. And when he pushed every bit as hard for the tax cut after he was elected, we still thought it was just a tactic. He'd seen the way his father had gotten clobbered for going back on "Read my lips -- no new taxes," and we figured he figured he couldn't back down even a little on his own tax plans. It wasn't that he truly believed in tax cuts; it was simply that you'd boxed him in. So it was your fault. That's how lots of us saw it, anyway. But now I'm looking at Mr. Bush's latest budget proposal, and I'll be darned if the thing isn't loaded with even more tax cuts -- he wants them deeper, he wants them sooner. He wants them even though we're spending tons of money trying to protect ourselves against terrorism, even though we may have to spend tons more money fighting a war against Iraq, even though there won't be nearly enough money left to pay for other important programs. I've finally figured it out: For Mr. Bush, tax cuts aren't just a tactic, they're a way of life! Now, I guess I could continue to blame you for that. After all, if you hadn't gotten the ball rolling, George Bush might never have been attracted to tax cuts in the first place, and we wouldn't be in this deficit hole we're in -- big and getting bigger all the time. But that wouldn't be fair to you. At some point, a person has to take responsibility for his own actions. Posted 2/4/03. Get
the lowdown from syndicated columnist Rick Horowitz twice every week!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
