 |
This just in: Nobody likes taxes! Tell Us Something We Don't KnowBy Rick Horowitz
They speak the words as if they're something elemental, something any fool should be able to see. But not merely elemental -- they speak the words as if they're also something profound, something that answers all questions, and clinches all debates. "It's not the government's money -- it's your money!" President Bush has been saying words like those, with that nervous little "why-can't-they-understand?" laugh of his, since even before he moved into the White House. Grover Norquist and his tax-slashing pals have been saying them for years. Likewise the guys and gals of right-tongue radio and TV. "It's not the government's money -- it's your money!" So simple, and yet so... Simple-minded. I wouldn't dream of mentioning it, except that with June 30 only just come and gone, we've had the fascinating sight of governments coast to coast crashing against the rocks of budget warfare. Massive deficits everywhere they turn, and no easy way out: Do they balance their books by cutting still further into important programs and essential services? Or do they do it by bringing in more on the revenue side and -- Don't even think about it! Bringing in more on the revenue side means raising taxes, and raising taxes means collecting billions of dollars from hardworking people like you and yours, and that sort of thing is just totally unacceptable. After all: "It's not the government's money -- it's your money!" Well, yes. And for that matter, so what? We may look stupid, those of us who don't happen to believe that the government's highest calling is sending out refund checks (or better still, holding a "Going Out of Business" sale), but we really do understand that it's "not the government's money." They print it, but we earn it, and we should get to keep it. Except that I'd also like it if the plane I'll be taking on my next vacation doesn't bump into some other plane at 33,000 feet -- but I can't afford my own air-traffic-control system. I'd like it if the foods I eat were free of diseases -- but I can't afford my own team of meat and poultry inspectors. I'd like it if international terrorists don't bring their horrors to our shores ever again -- but I can't afford my own set of border guards, let alone my own air force. So I'm willing to chip in. And so, I suspect, are you -- willing, that is, to add some of your money to some of mine and some of his and some of hers until there's enough in the pot to do the things that ought to be done. The bad word for this kind of thing -- the awful, horrible, never-say-it-out-loud, take-the-pledge-and-death-to-you-if-you-even-think-about-backing-down-on-it word -- is "taxes." But another word is "society" -- people doing things more effectively together than they could individually. I know you agree with the concept; I'm sure President Bush agrees with it, too. Even Grover Norquist probably agrees with it. (Or does Grover have his own food taster these days?) So maybe it's time to drop the bogus rhetoric, OK? It gets us nowhere -- except paralyzed. Now, if you want to argue about which things government ought to be doing, and which can be better handled individually, or in the private sector, that's fine. If you want to argue about how much of "our money" the government ought to be spending to do these things, that's fine, too. We may disagree -- we may disagree plenty -- on the details. One of us, or even both of us, may be disappointed in the way the argument turns out; we may not get nearly everything we want. But at least that's an argument worth having. And the word for that is "politics." Bring it on. Posted 7/1/03. Get
award-winning commentary twice every week! (Have your friends been notified?)
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
