 |
Mark Shields is a nationally known columnist and commentator. |
Bush: Myth-buster and Republican original
WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- A warning to my liberal friends: Reading the following paragraphs may risk elevating your blood pressure. In is this writer's view, President George W. Bush has already established himself as a transforming American political figure who is personally changing the face of the Republican Party.
Consider this: Probably since the heavy favorite Goliath was humbled by a pint-sized David with his sling-shot and certainly since a group of rag-tag rebels whipped the world's greatest army belonging to the king of England to win the American Revolution, the citizens of this country have identified with and rooted for the underdog. Americans have cheered over and over again for "Rocky," with the skills of a mediocre club-fighter but the heart of a lion; for Rudy, the five foot-nothing football scrub who gets in on the final play of the final game of his senior year and tackles the opposing quarterback to live his impossible dream of playing for Notre Dame; for Cinderella; and, unless you're from New York, for whoever is playing against the Yankees.
President George W. Bush is admirably egalitarian in his personal and social relations. But in making his public policy, Bush does not even acknowledge the existence of the American Underdog value. The Republican president relentlessly advocates more and deeper tax cuts to close the potentially explosive gap between the Super Rich and the Filthy Rich. He unapologetically ignores critics who cite the Republican-controlled Joint Committee on Taxation's study that calculates that the Bush-backed House bill will eventually award 67.8 percent of the total tax-cut dollars to those with annual incomes of more than $200,000, even though that group under current law pays just 32.7 of the federal taxes.
The rising tide of tax breaks will apparently lift all yachts. Why so much preference for the well-heeled top-dogs and so little concern for the nation's economic underdogs?
In proudly classless America, rebuts the president, anyone who raises such questions is guilty of -- Heaven forbid -- "class warfare." The preacher in chief is unembarrassed about his tax plan, which further comforts the already comfortable.
For comparison, return with us to those golden days of yesteryear, when the Original Tax-Cutter, Ronald Reagan, was in the White House. According to first-hand witnesses, "the Gipper" was absolutely furious when he learned that 57 enormously profitable U.S. corporations, including General Electric, Boeing and Dupont, had in 1983 paid not a dime in corporate income taxes.
When told that a single mother of three in Milwaukee earning $12,000 a year (an authentic underdog) paid more in U.S. taxes than all these corporate giants (undeniable top-dogs), Reagan was so outraged he pushed successfully for passage of an alternative minimum tax to guarantee that profitable companies could not escape federal tax liability. George W. Bush, who apparently does not feel similar outrage, now seeks to repeal Reagan's alternative minimum tax.
To be fair, Bush prefers to call his tax cut a "jobs bill." That is what the president's men called the $1.3 trillion Bush tax cut of 2001. In fact, just a year ago, the White House announced that the "tax cut will help create 800,000 jobs by the end of 2002." That did not, you may have noticed, work out. The U.S. economy, which has lost 500,000 jobs in the last three months alone, has, according to one study, lost 563 jobs every hour of every working day since George W. Bush became president.
Rep. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, a close Bush ally, predicts, "This (House-passed tax-cut) bill will create 1.2 million jobs by the end of next year." Given the $550 billion that the U.S. Treasury will have to borrow and add to the swelling national debt to cover the cost of the bill, that would figure out to approximately half a million dollars per job -- not cheap.
Showing no mercy, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts, compares the Bush Republicans' addiction to annual tax-cuts to the French winemaker Madame Bollinger's fondness for champagne. She said: "I drink it when I'm happy and when I'm sad. Sometimes, I drink it when I'm alone. When I have company, I consider it obligatory. ... Otherwise, I never touch it -- unless I'm thirsty."
Markey is reminded of "the Republicans' approach to tax cuts. Republicans propose tax cuts when the budget is in surplus ... (and) when the budget is in deficit . Otherwise, they never propose tax-cuts ... unless they're thirsty for more giveaways to the rich."
That is Bush's domestic policy. It's now Bush's Republican Party, and it's Bush's economy.
