This week: The Dole Tax Cut

Bill Clinton and Ross Perot are having a field day slamming Bob Dole's proposed 15 percent tax cut -- and indeed, Dole himself has spent most of his career deriding the very supply-side economics he now champions. The cuts do seem to signal an abandonment of the Republican Revolution that promised to balance the budget and shrink the deficit. What do you think? Are these tax cuts a desperation move by a fading candidate? Or could this approach really stimulate the economy?

Read what others have said.

See what Tripod members had to say about online transactions in the last survey. For other past survey results, check our survey archive.

A new Work & Money survey is published each Wednesday.

---

buch1: Supply-side economics helped to get Regan elected, but the national debt more than doubled on his watch. Tax cuts and a balanced budget do not go together. Even Bob "It's my turn" Dole knew this before he decided to try and become president. Think about it.

Bakhru: I think its a good move. They will do it, because they want to follow the strategy Ronald Reagan used.

rjnerd: The whole idea is monumentally dumb. If it weren't for Ronnie's excesses, the budget would be balanced today. The jury is still out on us affording it once. It is clear that we couldn't afford two such hits on the national credit rating.
And yes, the big run up WAS Ronnie's idea. The budgets he sent to congress were even LARGER than what the supposedly free-spending Democratic congress eventually passed.

cyneburh: I think that Senator Dole has a very good grasp on the economic situation. He managed to push through some very good measures while in Congress (which Clinton is trying to take credit for, even though he tried to veto them) and I think that he'll do just as well -- if not better -- if elected President.

rrapheal: Supply side economics exploded the defecit for Reagan and there is no reason to believe it will be any different for Dole. Supply side economics pushed wealth to the rich through borrowing and tax incentives -- and now the least affluent are expected to pay back the debt by a reduction in the very services that they have paid more than their fair share for.

dagraf: It amazes me how the libs and the press continue to not "get it". What part of "tax cut" don't they understand? What part of "balanced budget" don't they understand? The budget CAN be balanced while cutting taxes (it's called "cutting spending"). Reagan's terms proved that cutting taxes stimulates growth, partially offsetting the reduction in tax rates. All we would then need is the will (read "Republican Congress") to CUT SPENDING and reform "entitlements."

sneeboo: It amazes me how idiotic, blindly loyal "dittoheads" who have their heads planted firmly within the doughnut-plumped ass-cheeks of that corpulent, blustering swine Rush Limbaugh and his ilk continue to not "get it." Dagraf, were you born rich? Are you a multi-millionaire? If not, then you have swallowed a mountain of Reagan PR hook, line, and sinker -- and it is affecting you directly every time you pay taxes or suffer reduced services. Even my very Republican economics professor (yes, I'm a business major) admits that the Reagan's voodoo economics were a disaster. Here's how Reagan's terms stimulated "growth": 60 percent of the wealth in the country fell into the hands of the top one percent of fat cats; real wages fell to a post-WWII low as the class of "working poor" (people who are trying to make an honest go of it) mushroomed; consumer debt (owed to that top one percent, of course) rose to unprecendented levels as middle-class families increasingly had to borrow on credit cards or take out whopping loans just to provide for their families; the United States of America, while on Reagan's watch, went from being the world's biggest creditor nation to the world's biggest debtor nation. And deregulating the banks and S & Ls really worked out great, huh? Reagan's free-wheeling policies actually proved that it is not possible to cut taxes and balance the budget at the same time. History will show that it was Reagan's economics that allowed the debt to get so out of control in the first place -- leaving poor, hapless George Herbert Walker Bush to break his "no new taxes" pledge (and doom his chances for a second term) in an attempt to stop the fiscal hemorrhaging. Are our memories really so short that we're willing to go down that road again just so Bob Dole can realize his dream of being president? The man has obviously become a whore -- he spent much of his career in the Senate blasting trickle-down economics -- and Jack Kemp. That he is willing to embrace those policies now shows that he is either deeply cynical or profoundly senile. What's your excuse, dagraf?

HARNOLD: I believe tax cuts should be provided, but not at the present. Its taken more than 20 years to get the budget where it is now and we can't expect it to be balanced overnight. Lets not put the cart before the horse. Balance the budget first. With the help of taxes we can reduce it faster, thus reducing the amount of interest we will eventually have to pay. Once this is achieved, a tax relief should be provided -- and will be well-deserved.

timboy: Although I'm from England, and I don't fully understand what the situation is in the States, tax cuts seem to me to be something that should only be done with caution. Cutting taxes and balancing a budget can only happen with large scale cuts in spending. This means cuts in education, welfare, etc. While this is no doubt beneficial to those that can afford it, it makes life very difficult for anybody who had previously relied on any of those benefits that were cut, which in turn leads to poverty. Poverty will inevitably lead to increased crime, as those who before would have been able to make an honest go of life are now faced with the choice of extreme hardship or crime against the system that evidently no longer cares for them. This will of course have an affect on the rest of us, both directly and indirectly through an inevitable rise in inurance rates, etc...

Jackey: A tax cut and a balanced budget can go together -- IF government spending, waste and fraud are reduced or eliminated! Think about it!

greyn: The tax cuts are not a desperation move but a challenging probe. I believe a tax cut and a balanced budget would be great. But it has to be a FOCUSED NATIONAL EFFORT, with no backstabbing or finger-pointing by either party, for it to work. And sneeboo, take heed: your language indicates a lack of control that may be detrimental to your future business dealings with people and life in general. BY THE WAY, check out who the fat cats are in CONGRESS -- then and now. A glass bellybutton should help.

Lorus: Dole's tax cut proposal is like my boss telling me that he is going to cut my salary by $300 per month, while my wife is expecting me to maintain our current standard of living and at the same time reducing our VISA card balance. You can't get blood out of a turnip. Eventually, you get what you pay for. I think that the American government will suffer if Dole's tax cut goes through, and I would expect a depression and an inflation rate higher than any other presidency in this century.

sneeboo: Glass bellybutton? What the hell does that even mean? Okay, I used a naughty word -- big deal. The lunacy of this proposed tax cut gets me very worked up. You've got a glass brain if you think we'll ever see a Congress with no backstabbing or fingerpointing. If that's what it takes to make this fantasy "gimme" scenario work, it's already doomed.

xprof: Were it not for interest on Reagan's deficits, we would have a balanced budget at this moment. Remember Reagan? He was the one who guided this country from being the largest creditor nation to being the largest debtor nation in one term! A corporate CEO with a record like that would never find another job! Why can't we find a challenger to the incumbent President who has something more to offer besides trying to "bribe" us with our grandchildren's money?

atech: The tax cut is a brilliant idea, although it is sad to see that it is only 15 percent. There are a couple major of differences between Republicans and Democrats. One being that the Republicans are for those who work, and Democrats are against. Also, Republicans are for those who wish to prosper, where Democrats are severely against. Democrats believe in cutting the military and our paychecks in half with taxes and phase-outs, where Republicans wish to do the opposite!

Marm: I support Dole's idea of a 15 percent tax cut. Many of those responding here seem to think that Reagan's tax cut exploded the national deficit. It, by itself, did not. The Reagan tax cuts and reforms INCREASED (by more than 1/2) the actual revenue taken in by the IRS. The problem is (and has been for thirty years) that spending increased too much (mostly due to social programs --> the percent of the budget spent on the military was much greater in Kennedy's administration than in Reagan's, while the percent increase spent on social securuity, welfare and Medicare boomed well above inflation). A tax cut is a good idea, because cuts have been shown to increase the actual amount recieved by the IRS (economic theory is that this reaction occurs becuase people have more capital to invest and start new businesses with). This is not a partisan "finding" but a fact. It happened when Reagan did it, as it happened when Kennedy did it. The only way the national debt and budget deficit will be cured is for spending to be restrained, in addition to cutting taxes.

seer12: Here are my ideas on the 15 percent tax cut. Let's take it step by step. The Feds need x amount of revenue per year to run the Government. With a 15 percent tax cut they will get less than x. So what needs to be done? Reduce Government spending and expand the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to cover the shortfall. The GDP is our collective national pay check before taxes.

Dole has said he will eliminate two Federal agencies (the Department of Energy and the Commerce Department). These two agencies alone cost the American taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars a year. I think he should also look at eliminating corporate welfare that is currently costing us about a 150 billion a year.

So what will happen if every worker in America got a 15 percent tax cut? Well, that would be the equivlent to a 15 percent raise. What would people do with the money? To increase our GDP it really doesn't matter....some would spend it, some would put in the bank, some would put in stocks etc. If one were to spend the money it would increase jobs, if one were to save money, it would do the same. The point is it would stimulate the economy and increase the GDP.

greyn: Definiton: Glass bellybutton -- a glass monacle that is surgically installed at the bellybutton so the unfortunate can see out.

As you should know, all politicians throw out challenges at the beginning of a campaign. It is a shame that Reagan is taking all the heat. Just what was the majority party doing? I do not understand how he got two (2) terms in office and his vice president got one (1) right after? I do seem to recall that the old majority party is not the majority anymore. How and why did that happen? In closing, just remember that divided we fall, together we stand -- no matter who wins or loses.

yawdaor: No one seems to realize that a " Line Item " veto goes in to effect after the election. To keep from ballooning the deficit as in the past, whoever is in the White House 1997-2000 will be able to pare budget busters and keep the budget in line without shutting the government down. So choose on the basis of "whom do you trust to do the right thing for the most people." I have not made this decision this far ahead of the November election.

VICIOUS1: First off, to Sneebo. If you were to ask the puppet masters who are pulling your strings and programming your mind what might have been meant by the "Glass Belly Button", you might realize how far removed you are from the mainstream. Now to the ones who question Reagans "voodoo economics" -- I would like to inform you that it is an undeniable truth that under Ronald Reagan the treasury revenues increased greater than any other time in history. The problem under Reagan was a spending side problem. We just spent too much. You should also realize that we were very much at war with the Soviet Union. We were fortunate in that we never had to shed any blood, but we were very much at war. So when Bill Clinton says he is proud that there are no nukes pointed at an American child, he should be. He should be proud because he is an American, and as such he will be expected to support and to help pay the resulting debt.

Javen: What we need is a reform of the tax system -- not just a cut -- as well as a reduction in Federal programs (i.e. "entitlements") and waste. A tax cut sounds good, but a flat tax system with a base deduction would be much better -- a system that treats everyone fairly, regardless of their income. Of course, there will be a reduction in revenues, but that's good because there should also be a reduction in expenses. Our present system is very similar to Marx's statement "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." We've got hard-core Socialism, which has been shown to be ineffective and detrimental to society.

As far as Dole's idea of reducing taxes it sounds good, but it's half-cooked. However, he is a MUCH better choice than Clinton. IMHO

smouer: Bob Dole and Jack Kemp have the right idea: Cut taxes and cut government. The government at all levels is bloated and filled with 2nd and 3rd order parasites trying to justify their public existence by convincing the lazy and the parasitically-inclined that they are victims who need public assistance. When I was a poor youth, I didn't much like it, but it gave me an incentive to work my way through college, and work hard to bring the better things to myself and my family. I am today still working my way through college (PhD this time). Bill Clinton's agenda is nothing more than a buy of votes from the parasitically-inclined in return for some kind of public handout. The Democratic party has become the party of homosexuals, women who hate men, minorities wallowing in their own pity, pansies, and parasites, and of course the 2nd and 3rd order parasites who want to service them at the paying public's expense. It's high time every adult accepted the total responsibility for their own welfare, and stop looking for someone else to "take care of them." The government is not anyone's parent, nor can it ever be..

sassysoft: You can't cut taxes like Dole wants to and balance the budget without serious spending cuts that would hurt the poor. The tax cut is across-the-board, so it would benefit the rich more than anyone. Balancing the budget is much more important than cutting taxes.

charlie122: Someone wrote earlier: "The cuts do seem to signal an abandonment of the 'Republican Revolution' that promised to balance the budget and shrink the deficit."

I disagree with this statement. The only budget proposal was VETOED by President Clinton. Clinton has not made ANY proposal of how he would lower the deficit, but like most of Clinton's promises, anything he says is questioned by his waffling from one position to the other.

WPalmer: I like Bob's tax cuts.

nosugar: One of the functions of income taxes is to effect the redistribution of a population's income. This is coincident with paying for the cost of governing this great nation. The redistribution is in the form of entitlement programs and caring for the poorest of the poor.

What Americancs need to understand is that needs of the poor will exist weather you pay through taxes directly or fund the deficits of government and private service agencies. Caring for the needy directly will cost far less than caring for the needy by default. For example the person with diabetes without insurance will wait until she is gangrenous before seeking medical help in an emergency room. If she had access to health care blood sugar monitoring and sound health management would have been far cheaper than amputation and rehab.

Reducing taxes via reducing or eliminating government programs will benefit the middle class and affluent who only occasionally need to access the services of the government. There are other ways to reduce taxes without significantly impacting the deficit (lower capital gains, increase qualified pension contribution limits, encourage individual funding retirement plans, and long-term care plans, move social security to self-managed separate accounts).

Management of tax strategies need to address the goals of American society as a whole not the summation of competing goals of different constituencies.

BTW, I like the concept of the glass belly button. But is it an inny or outy?

:-))

timboy: In answer to Javen's idea of a flat tax rate: we had one of them in England a few years ago for two years. It was an unmitigated disaster, and the single most unpopular thing the Tory government has done while in power. The problem with a flat tax rate is that you will have to set it at a rate that the least wealthy people in society can afford to pay, that leaves you with practically no tax coming in at all. Something that many people don't seem to realise is that the government exists for the good of all the citizens of the country it governs over, not just those with money. A flat rate tax makes parasites out of the wealthy, as the poor have to give up a huge portion of their income just so that the wealthy can afford another heated towel rail! It buys a little bit more comfort for the rich at the expense of the suffering of the poor. The fact is, that the well-off *need* the not-so-well-off. It's a fact that there are a huge number of low-paid jobs that someone needs to fill.

sclayton: First we need to stop borrowing money -- that is, reducing the deficit. Then we need to start retiring the debt -- that is, running a surplus. To reduce the current unbelievably huge debt, the country will need to run a big surplus for 20 years. The country is doing well right now, we can afford to start on the long road to debt reduction, and a blanket 15% tax cut is irresponsible. Major spending cuts are needed.

Dole is pandering to personal greed to get votes. It is his only chance. He has nothing else to offer.

jmd: The tax cut (like Dole's sudden interest in America's youth) goes against everything in Dole's political past vis-a-vis taxes. The man made his reputation, in part, as a Nixon-loving deficit hawk, regularly slamming and opposing Reagan/Bush tax reduction enterprises.

Then again, given the official revelation of Reagan's mental illness, it may be that it takes a touch of Alzheimer's for a tax cut to make sense.

C'mon fellas, wake up. This is political pandering at its most predictable and mediocre. Bob Dole must be making himself sick to throw out the only thing he refused to compromise in his Senate career. Perhaps he's older than Clinton, but he's no more respectable, and he's certainly become more fiscally irresponsible. To paraphrase a paraphrase, "By any means necessary, get elected."

robertbob: This platform plank serves only to agitate the media and, in turn, do the same for all thinking hoi polloi. As has been so ably stated by my fellow Tripodians (Tripodites?), a tax cut is fiscal foolery.

mpowersq: The Republican tax cut will put us further into debt, just like the Reagan cut did. If Dole doesn't tell exactly where cuts will be made to make the tax cut possible, he's trying the bamboozle the American people. I hope we won't stand for that sort of baloney!