Opinion: Tax cut is a blueprint for lower spending

It's obvious to me that only a dedicated liberal could look at a check to taxpayers from the Internal Revenue Service as a "scam." It's really worrying the liberals that President Bush and the Republicans are returning money to millions of American taxpayers. This has the Democrats so upset they are saying that the tax checks are a way to "bribe voters with their own money." Even if it's true, it is far preferable to the Democrats' strategy of bribing voters with other people's money.

It was the liberals who watered down the tax cut, so it isn't as big as it should be -- not by a long shot. But it is a tax cut, and the checks from the IRS are real. Whatever it is, it's more than you received the past eight years and certainly more than you would have gotten from Al Gore.

The end result of the whole picture is unprecedented pressure on the government to keep spending down and get the money back to the people. This has created a new special interest group called "taxpayers who like getting their money back." It is a blueprint for less spending and lower taxes down the road, and it is important for the country to see this can happen without the "Chicken Little philosophy" of the Democrats and the media coming true. The tax checks certainly have had some impact because the liberals have gone all out to minimize and trash them.

I'll vote for the politician who sends my money back, and you should, too.
-- J. Soto, Brooksville

Don't give away other people's money

Re: Who benefits from all this compassion?, letter Aug. 23.

Can't someone make it plain to people like the letter writer what the tax rebate is? This is not some governmental gift to the needy, but a refund. She wails about "the 45 percent of the population who will receive less than the $300 or nothing," and says those who do receive "the full amount will be the very ones with incomes significantly above the poverty level . . . not the working poor who most probably would spend it . . . (but) the ones who do not need it . . . for purchases and will add it to their savings."

I resent people popping off about who, besides me, needs my money! We received a refund, but I couldn't add it to our meager savings, because some people who owed us money spent theirs unwisely, and so did not repay us a debt five months past due. We had to apply our refund to pay our bills! Getting a tax refund doesn't mean one is rich; it merely means too much money was paid in.

It is not someone else's right to decide if I can do without my money! Just because people work and pay taxes doesn't mean they couldn't have a mom in a nursing home who needs support, or some other needs others know nothing about!

The letter writer also stated that those dollars she coveted " . . . just happen to be part of the Social Security surplus, which we were told was not to be touched." Several articles have explained that there is no such thing as a Social Security surplus, but that government funds are all lumped together. What goes in from taxes now is being paid out now. Even the Democrats have debunked the "lockbox" theory of protected funds.
-- Elvera Holroyd, Clearwater

Don't neglect social spending

Re: Let the surplus go in this economy, by Robert M. Dunn Jr., Aug. 22.

Robert Dunn is right -- "... we should all be Keynesians now." But Keynes was not keen on tax cuts per se. He favored tax cuts combined with government spending on unmet social needs.

It is hard for me to see how a big tax cut in the out years for the wealthiest 1 percent of the U.S. population and the abolition of the inheritance tax for multimillionaires 10 years from now can rev-up a stalling U.S. economy now.

A reduction in regressive taxes like the gasoline tax and the payroll tax would put money into the hands of poor Americans now. And they would spend it now. This could be combined with investment for future growth (that is, desperately needed spending on schools, mass transit, bridges and parks).

When Dunn writes, "Let the automatic stabilizers, aided by a well-timed tax cut, do their job," my question is: What automatic stabilizers? Unemployment compensation covers only a small fraction of U.S. workers. And the 1996 Welfare Reform Act gutted Aid to Families with Dependent Children and food stamps. As in the '30s, many people are going to be out of work during this recession and will be ineligible for any form of public assistance. Once their savings (if any) are exhausted, their purchasing power will be zero. The absence of automatic stabilizers was one of the main reasons the Great Depression was "great."

The real Herbert Hoovers in this scenario are the Republicans in Congress who wrote the law and President Clinton, who abandoned Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Democratic Party principles when he signed it.
-- Walter G. Schroeder, Tampa

Tax cut was a mistake

Re: Bush: Smaller surplus is good, Aug. 25.

If I follow the "Bushonomics" logic, it would make sense for me to spend every available dime I have, then dip into my retirement savings (for George W., my Social Security), because that would leave so little that I would be unable to overspend. Am I missing something? Let's face it: The man messed up by cutting taxes. It didn't take a rocket scientist to know that the money he was going to "give" everyone wasn't there to give. Those who needed the money the most never received it anyway because they didn't pay enough in taxes to qualify, and for those who did get it, it amounted to the equivalent of the price of a good Broadway show and maybe dinner.

Come on, George, don't try to snow the people any more than you already have. Admit you messed up and -- as difficult as it may be for you -- try not to do it again!
-- Conrad P. Lombardo, St. Petersburg

Less is more?

Re: Bush: Smaller surplus is good.

Using the president's philosophy, I looked at my bank account again and find it incredibly positive news that there is less money in there than last month. This means that I won't be tempted to waste what little I have left on school lunches for my children, car insurance premiums or electricity payments.

Thank you, Mr. President, for showing me that the way to fiscal solvency is having fewer dollars in my wallet.
-- Jeffery F. Dow, Dunedin

Palestinian uprising is widespread

Re: Israel needs to employ a short war and a high wall, by George F. Will, Aug. 19.

Does George Will really believe that Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority can prevent all the attacks against Israel and stop the Palestinian uprising by rounding up a few individuals? Does he really believe that young men and women from all ages and political affiliations are sacrificing their livelihood and lives in confronting the Israeli war machine for the fun of it or because they enjoy it?

The fact of the matter is, neither powerless Arafat nor Prime Minister Ariel Sharon can stop by force the uprising or the attacks against Israeli targets. History and recent events prove this point.

The entire Palestinian nation is oppressed and denied the basic human rights that other Jewish citizens in Israel enjoy, and that pushed them to the point of hopelessness and desperation.

Those who are revolting against the Israeli occupation and aggression are not just the members of certain "terrorist" organizations. Every segment of the Palestinian nation is part of this uprising, including many members of the Palestinian Authority who found negotiation with Israel is no more than an illusive and humiliating game. You may round up 50, 60 or even 100 people, but you'll get more attacks on Israeli targets. The revenge game will never stop. So, who is responsible for this continuing this cycle of violence? Just look at who has the army, the tanks, the missiles, the helicopters, the jets, etc. Who is controlling the economy there and is choking Palestinian institutions and people to death? You get the picture?

Now comes George Will telling Sharon to be tougher and nastier. I am getting sick of such people who know the truth but turn their back to it.
-- Saleh A. Mubarak, Tampa

Let Arab nations provide aid

Your Aug. 17 editorial (As the Mideast burns) points out the great need for American diplomacy in that area.

There is, however, another approach that has never been tried. The Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan could help their Palestinian co-religionists by improving their living conditions. They could help them get out of the dilapidated refugee camps many of them have been living in for the past 50 years and allow them to resettle in the Arab land of their choice.

They must stop using the misery of the Palestinians for propaganda and encourage Yasser Arafat to make peace with Israel. Then, he might feel free to take action against the terrorists.

The Arab nations have never shown that they want to live with Israel in their midst; only that they want to destroy it. The Palestinian intifada is only a symptom of this disease.
-- Marvin Katz, Oldsmar

An attempt to smear the president

Your publication of the article, Maybe it's fear of flying in the Floridian Section on Aug. 23 shows that you have stooped to a new low. This biased article is an obvious attempt to smear the president of the United States. All the president did was read a children's story to a group of children in a classroom, something he should be commended for.

We all know that the St. Petersburg Times is a very liberal, left-leaning newspaper, but could you at least confine this biased writing to the editorial page?
-- Arthur M. Richard, St. Petersburg

What was the motivation?

Re: Maybe it's fear of flying, Aug. 23.

Let's see, what was Times staff writer Bill Duryea thinking when he wrote this article? Was it maybe: I can't find any trash on George W. today, so I'll make something up, after all, our liberal Democrat readers will love anything that discredits George W.!

P.S: The butterfly is a symbol of renewal or rebirth. Our president, as well as all who have undergone this transformation, understands only too well the significance of the story. Nice graphics, though!
-- Marilyn Timpanaro, Clearwater

A fair paper

I have always felt that the "Letters" feature in a newspaper should be a source of information from readers responding to a story, a column or an editorial. Hopefully, something can be learned from these letters. The steady publication of semi-literate letters calling the Times a liberal newspaper and other letters with things like "Democrats advocate group/herd mentality . . ." (Advocating voter ignorance?, Aug. 22) are hardly a public service.

The St. Petersburg Times is not a great newspaper, being much more concerned with Florida news than with the rest of the world, but neither is it a liberal one. In fact, it is probably one of the fairest papers I have ever read in terms of editorial content. Any newspaper that regularly prints columns by George Will can hardly be called liberally slanted.
-- A. William Clark, Homosassa

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page