WHAT'S a president to do when the economy is stuck in a rut and an election year is coming up? Cut taxes! What's a president to do when no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq yet? Cut taxes! What's a president to do when Hillary Clinton's new book gets more attention than the "Road Map" for Peace in the Middle East? Cut taxes! What's Bush going to do when a White House sink breaks? Cut taxes!
George W. Bush, following in the footsteps of conservative ideologue Ronald Reagan, has made tax cuts (and massive military invasions) a panacea for all of America's ills. Time will tell the effects of the tax cut. However, regardless of the tax cuts' economic effects, it will certainly be a shot in the arm for the GOP's and the President's political popularity. Unfortunately, the Republicans gains come at college students' expense.
During his first term, Bush has passed two large tax cuts packages. Bush knows these tax cuts can never be repealed. When his tax cuts are supposed to expire, the Republicans have the easy option of charging the Democrats with raising taxes if they do not make the tax cut permanent (Most of the tax cut expires in election years). The Democrats could never win the Oval Office back with a campaign of "higher taxes." The Republicans know this and have passed tax cuts to ensure political success for the rest of the decade.
Ultimately, the goal of the tax cuts is to force a massive scale down of the scope of the federal government. A decentralized version of federalism has been a Republican goal since FDR made Washington D.C. explode in size and power. However, as Reagan discovered, tax cuts only win votes if Congress and the President do not cut programs that American's care about. Therefore, the only way a Republican can be successful is to run huge deficits with new tax cuts (or brain wash the country into thinking September 11 makes the Republican Party the only party capable of keeping America safe). The Republicans hope huge deficits will give the country a mandate to shrink the federal government, ultimately forcing smaller government.
However, one only has to look at the presidency of Bush's father to see the flaws with the Republican strategy. Reagan notoriously tripled the national debt. Before George H.W. Bush came into office, he made the equally notorious claim of "no new taxes." However, as unemployment rose and deficits ran out of control making the American economy spiral downward, H.W. Bush had no choice to either cut government spending which he supported at the beginning of the term or raise taxes. The elder Bush let his conscience get to him and it cost him the election. He refused to let deficits reach unthinkable levels, so he turned against his campaign promise of new taxes. The rest is history. Bush's deficits will ruin his successor's --- either Democrat or Republican--presidency just like Reagan ruined his father's presidency.
Of course, Bush could limit deficits by forcing massive government guts. So far though, Bush has shown minimal effort to reduce the size of the government. But not even the popular Reagan ("Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem") could shrink the national government. I have no hope that a Democrat could win his party nomination by promising huge spending cuts. Fiscal responsibility is certainly a main tenet of the Democratic platform, but any Democrat in office would have to minimize budget cuts to please the liberal constituency.
Therefore, the burden then lies on the Republicans to keep deficits under control. The burden is just--the party that wants to shrink the national government should be the one that actually does it. In an outrageous statement, Bush blames the Democrats for huge deficits. Bush is the one that cut taxes, the GOP forced the legislation through; like it or not, the Republicans are in control. As long as Bush and the Republicans are in control, it is their responsibility to limit the deficit.
But I doubt Bush would make such painful cuts. Budget cuts cost votes. And the age group that is most opposed to national debt, ages 18-24, has the lowest voter turnout rate. Conservative columnist George F. Will puts it best: "Americans are ideological budget-balancers but operational deficit-spenders."
The unfortunate truth is that irresponsible tax cuts still win elections. Bush has a rare opportunity to cut back on huge deficits with incredible popularity after the September 11 attacks and a Democratic party that has more discovering to do than a prepubescent boy. But Bush would much rather stay in the Oval Office for four more years; he would rather spend his political capital on things that get him elected, not what is right.
(Patrick Harvey is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at pharvey@cavalierdaily.com)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Prides and joys
By Shaleah Tolliver | 6 hours agoI have seen what student journalism can do — it can highlight the marginalized, influence the majority and spark conversations.
PARTING SHOT: Failure does define you
By Grace Duregger | 6 hours agoFour years at the University have taught me what it means to make an impact despite setbacks.
PARTING SHOT: On fighting imposter syndrome and being cool
By Mary Kurbanov | YesterdayUltimately, though, I now know that success in a role is possible if deep-seated passion is the main source of motivation.
