Calling for Tax Cuts Disingenuous

I just reviewed the president's candidates positions in a helpful summary by the New York Times here.

I find the Republicans constant call for tax cuts disingenuous. If taxes are always too high no matter what their current level is, then the optimal level of taxes would logically be zero. Yet no Republican has come forward proposing to shut down the government entirely yet.

It's easy to be for tax cuts, because no one likes paying taxes. But it's intellectually and morally dishonest unless you can explain what level of taxes you would find justified or supportable. I find it morally dishonest because I believe it feeds into today's mentality of something for nothing - that I ought to be able to benefit from government services without having to pay for them. In civil society, where so many of our investments require common payment and provide common benefit, this self-centered thinking is corrosive. It feeds into cheating the system and promotes the attitude that it's OK to take a free ride at the expense of the system wherever possible.

I understand that no one wants to suggest specific programs to cut while running for office, but candidates ought to at least explain in principle what types of programs and services government ought to provide and therefore should be funded by taxes, and what types of programs and services should not be.

Proposing to cut taxes is particularly irresponsible now, at a time when we have record deficits, two concurrent and very expensive wars, and lingering social security and medicare budget crises. To my way of thinking, cutting taxes now is just shifting the burden of today's costs onto the next generation. That's what deficit spending is generally, but particularly in our current setting.

Comments

Anonymous said…
You mentioned the two expensive wars: I want to emphasize that these wars are far far more expensive than they needed to be because anything privatized is more expensive, and there is an extraordinary amount of waste happening, if I am to believe what I've been told. While it is true that IN THEORY, privatizing isn't necessarily more expensive than G.I., in fact, it always seems to work out that way. When theory and reality differ, it is usually theory that is incorrect.
January 14, 2008
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Idea of "White Supremacy Culture" is Offensive

Anyone with a cursory knowledge of history and cultures knows that all cultures have both oppressive and liberatory aspects. Historically, it was quite typical to conquer, kill, and enslave neighboring groups or nations - just ask the Aztecs or the Mongols. Historically, European and American culture are rife with oppressive aspects, but not particularly more so than any other culture. Part of the joy of being an Unitarian Universalist for me has been its openly syncretic approach to finding wisdom; that is, we seek great wisdom from all cultures, and at least historically have been able to borrow and build upon such wisdom without apology. In my own personal experience, I have gained wisdom from European, Asian, African, and Native American cultures, among others; as well as Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, and Pagan beliefs. To pursue truth and wisdom wherever you find it has historically been one of our great blessings. With new walls being erected about certain traditional bel...
Read more

Two Types of Community Conversations

When I think about what it means to be a Unitarian Universalist and how that might change, I think about two different ways of having conversations. If the first way, we start from the principle of universal human equality and human dignity. We start from the approach that the search for truth is grounded in love. This is based upon our current Seven Principles. Based upon these principles, all voices will be given equal weight and an equal chance to be heard. And those listening will endeavor to listen charitably, with an ear to acknowledging and empathizing with what each speaker says. Under such conditions the growth of mutual understanding is possible. While agreement will not always be reached, we can build community through this process of recognizing each other, including recognizing our very real differences. In the second way, we start from the assumption that all verbal interactions should be seen through the lens of unequal power. People of color, women, and LGBTQ people hav...
Read more

Universalism and Color Translucency

 I believe in universalism. That is, I believe what connects us as human beings is more important than what divides us. The inherent worth and dignity of all persons. That all persons are entitled to dignity and respect. It's not a new belief. It's not an easy belief. Conceptually it's quite simple. And yet I don't think it needs revision. I don't think it needs an asterisk. I think universalism is a concept that can endure across time and across space. The love that I feel is not different than the love you feel. Nor is the pain or the suffering or the yearning. Nor is my flawed nature. My mortal nature. My limited nature. We are different in so many particulars, and yet we share so much in common as human beings. Put it another way. I think our common humanity is more important than our hyphenated humanity. We are different races, genders, sexualities, ages, and capabilities but none of this should divide us irreconcilably. It is possible to connect across these d...
Read more