Now is a good time to bring schoolchildren to Washington for a view of hypocrisy in action. Last week, the House, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., reached an agreement with the Bush administration on an economic stimulus package. Because Democrats choke on the words “tax cuts” like a cat eating peanut butter, they refer to the checks that would return taxed money to citizens as “rebates.” Potato, po-tah-to. The point is to get more cash in consumers’ hands.
“I can’t say that I’m totally pleased with this package, but I do know that it will help stimulate the economy,” Pelosi said. “And if it does not, then there will be more to come.” Somewhere, Ronald Reagan is smiling to hear the uberliberal Pelosi espousing supply-side economics.
But that begs an obvious question: If she and many of her fellow Democrats clearly understand that allowing people to keep more of their own money is good for the economy, why do they rail against the Bush tax cut that expires in 2010 and oppose making it permanent? Will it not also be beneficial two years from now for consumers to have more money to spend and invest?
Nonetheless, Pelosi deserves credit: In shaping a compromise bill acceptable to both the House and the Bush administration, she demonstrated that she is not impervious to reason. Among Democrats, that could mark her like a mutant dog to be shunned by the rest of the pack. But while Pelosi understood that larding the stimulus bill with more giveaway programs would only impede its passage, some senators — both Republicans and Democrats — seem determined to do just that.
Maine Republican Susan Collins wants the bill to include more money for heating assistance, food stamps and unemployment benefits. Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden wants to tack on more money for infrastructure funding. Montana Democrat Max Baucus wants “rebates” sent to retirees, even though they aren’t wageearners. Several Democratic senators have even called for the silliest addition: hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for mortgage counselors.
What are these people thinking? First of all, they may be dooming the economic stimulus package because President Bush ought to veto such a bill. Moreover, giving wageearners back some of their own money while simultaneously saddling them with an expanded welfare state negates the entire exercise. Whom do these senators think is going to pay for the food stamps, heating assistance and mortgage counselors except for the very people who are being squeezed to pay for programs that already exist?
Middle-class Americans have trouble making ends meet not because the cost of living is so high, but because the cost of government is so high. Fifty years ago, total taxes consumed about one-fourth of household income. Today, total taxes account for more than 38 percent of the average household’s expenses.
Government likely gets away with that only because of withholding law, which ensures that most wageearners don’t fully comprehend how much of their money is confiscated. Imagine how different the situation would be if the majority of Americans had to write a check to the government every month when they paid their other bills.
If a family with an annual household income of $80,000 — paying $1,200 for the mortgage, $200 for gasoline, $60 for cable, etc. — had to send $2,500 to the government every month, how long would they tolerate such foolishness as hundreds of millions of dollars for mortgage counselors?
The absurdity of modern government is that it taxes citizens into financial hardship — and then demands more taxes to solve the problems it creates. For instance, taxpayers are soaked for after-school programs and subsidized day care because so many mothers have to work. But a mother contributing a second income typically earns about the amount the household will pay in taxes. Dad can still bring home the bacon; Mom works to pay for the pork.
With the tens of thousands of dollars deducted from their paychecks every year, that family living on $80,000 could easily afford to buy health insurance. They should have no trouble making their mortgage payments or paying their own heating bills. Allowing them to keep more of their own money would benefit them as well as the economy.
If that is clear even to the likes of Pelosi, why are certain senators being so thick?
Examiner Columnist Melanie Scarborough lives in Alexandria.
