|
A luxurious Bugatti Veyron rolled to a stop in a parking place and out stepped New Hampshire's wealthiest Republican, Hollis Bedford-Amherst. His monocle glistened in the sunlight. "Good morning, Mr. Bedford-Amherst," I offered. "How are you doing today?"
"Swimmingly, swimmingly, my man," he replied. "Everything is going my way. My errand boys, the Republicans in Congress, are working hard to extend the Bush tax cuts of 2001. If they can do that, because I earn more than $1 million per year, I will save $103,000 in taxes in 2011. Bully!"
"But wait a minute, sir," I responded, "the Bush tax cuts of 2001 were intended to expire in 2011. If they are made permanent for the wealthiest Americans, $36 billion would be added to the deficit in 2011. President Obama has a fairer plan; he would retain the tax cuts for individuals who make less than $200,000 and couples who earn less than $250,000. That's 98 percent of workers. Only the wealthiest 2 percent would be affected by the end of the Bush tax cuts."
"Nobel-winning columnist Paul Krugman wrote," I continued, "according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years." (New York Times, 8/23/10)
Bedford-Amherst turned red with anger. His monocle popped out of his eye. "I take offense, sir. Wealthy people pay unconscionably high taxes. Soak the rich. Soak the rich. It's always the same - the rabble always soaks the rich."
"I beg to differ, sir," I replied. "Do you know that the top tax bracket was 94 percent in 1944, and it remained above 82 percent until 1964? Ronald Reagan cut taxes, but still the top tax bracket was 69 percent during his presidency. (Mutual Funds, March, 2002) The top bracket continued to decline to 35 percent partly as a result of the Bush tax cuts. The end of Bush's tax cuts would increase the top 2 percent's rate only 4.5 points to 39.5 percent, far less than the top bracket has been in the recent past.
Now, Bedford-Amherst was truly annoyed. He impatiently tapped his riding breeches with his crop. "Lord knows, we wealthy people are doing all we can for the lower classes. Our servants, the Republicans in Congress, stoutly maintain that tax cuts for the rich stimulate economic growth."
"Again, sir," I offered, "I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office calculated that each $1 million in tax cuts would create between 1 and 4 additional jobs; compared with 6 to 15 jobs from increasing unemployment assistance; 3 to 9 jobs from providing aid to states, and 4 to 10 jobs from investing in infrastructure. (Washington Post, 7/28/10)
"Moreover," I continued, "when Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve for nearly 20 years, was asked if he agrees with Republicans who say that tax cuts pay for themselves, he said simply, 'They do not.' (Reuters, 8/2/10) If tax cuts were magic stimulators of the economy and generators of tax revenue, then why have the Bush tax cuts of 2001 left the nation with such a huge budget deficit? However, I can see that we don't agree on tax cuts, sir. Can we turn to another topic? Who do you favor in the race for member of Congress from the 1st Congressional District?
"No doubt in my mind," answered Bedford-Amherst, "no doubt at all. I support the Republican candidates - they're from my class you know. According to public records, Shawn Mahoney lists diversified investments valued between $11.4 and $35.6 million; Rich Ashooh earned $391,213 last year as a lobbyist for BAE systems, and has a savings account holding between $100,000 and $250,000. Bob Bestani received $116,835 last year from a pension and consulting fees. Bestani lists investments worth between $726,000 and $1.366,000."
"Finally," Bedford-Amherst went on, "Frank Guinta has between $89,000 and $355,000 invested; owns two properties assessed at a total of $758,700; and has somewhere between $267,000 and $580,000 in savings. The incumbent, Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter? Tut-tut. She's a ragamuffin. Shea-Porter lists savings and investments totaling less than $30,000. Oh, my."
"Excuse me, sir," I responded, "but we have a representative form of government. That is, elected representatives are expected to be like the people they represent. That way, elected officials can understand the problems of their constituents and act effectively in their best interests. Carol Shea-Porter experiences the same economic conditions as the vast majority of people in her district. She has walked a mile in their shoes and knows the challenges they face. Her modest financial condition is an advantage, not a disadvantage."
"One other thing," I added. "As Harry Truman said, 'You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook.' I guess we can be pretty sure that Congresswoman Shea-Porter is honest."
This column first appeared in The Forum. It appears here with the permission of The Forum.
|
