OUR VIEWS

Bold, but debatable move

Would the economy stand up and salute if the total package were enacted? Not likely, many economists say, although the plan includes some good parts — along with some of dubious value.

One of the not-so-good parts — the one that caused the stock market to zip heavenward Monday as it sometimes does for emotional reasons — is the elimination of taxes on stock dividends. The expectation had been for a proposed reduction in the tax, not elimination.

Elimination means the hit on revenue would be major, about half the cost of the total package. That wouldn't necessarily be bad if elimination of the dividend tax were likely to give a large boost to a sluggish economy. At best, the impact will come long after the economy is on its way to recovery and even then is likely to be modest. Far more economic stimulus can be provided faster through other, short-term and temporary changes in tax policy.

More important, the Bush proposal is based on a fairness argument that is less than convincing. The White House argues that taxing dividends amounts to double taxation: A company pays income tax on its profits and then stockholders pay income tax on their dividends, which come from those same profits. It is an argument that has been popular in and around Wall Street and some academic institutions for decades.

However, even assuming a company has actually paid taxes on its profits and assuming its dividends actually come only from those taxed profits — neither of which is always true — the double-taxation-of-dividends argument rests on a logic that could be just as easily be applied to other taxes. Yet, you don't find that argument being made for anything other than the taxation of dividends, which many American already have tax-sheltered through 401(k) accounts and IRAs.

For example, columnist Paul Krugman observes on the facing page that people pay income and payroll taxes when they earn money and pay sales taxes when they spend that same money. That's just as much double-taxation as the dividend tax and, depending on the sales tax law, is probably both more harmful to the economy and more unfair.

As we said earlier, parts of the package have worthiness in and of themselves. Among them are a quickened reduction of the income-tax marriage penalty and a use of unemployment funds to reward the jobless who find jobs. The former will benefit many taxpayers and the latter is clearly an economic stimulant in addition to helping people who most need help.

A telling criticism of the package is that it will boost the economy only marginally, and that meanwhile, deficits and debt will grow. Fiscal policy, at best, is an inexact instrument for managing economies, and while $674 billion sounds like a lot, it's still a tail trying to wag a dog; this country's economy is huge.

An answer to deficits could be to hold down spending, but spending on defense and homeland security is definitely going up, and few are predicting undiluted success for Bush administration attempts to keep other costs in tow.

Politically, President Bush appears to have encircled the Democrats. They cannot accuse him of doing nothing, and their own plan does not appear any more likely to stimulate the economy.

In the end, of course, Bush will not — and should not — get all he seeks. It would be good if he got those parts that have worth in themselves, and he will get some portion of them. When the economy picks up — as it may very well do this year for reasons mostly unrelated to governmental fiscal policy — Bush may look the hero. A bold hero.

Not a good excuse

The body is the committee charged by the Alabama Constitution with nominating new trustees for Auburn University. Riley attended unannounced closed meetings of the group this past weekend as a guest.

While a deputy attorney general said last month that the committee is not covered by the state's open meeting law — we're not convinced that is so — that doesn't mean the meetings must be closed or unannounced. And most of them ought to be open, including interview sessions.

Riley spokesman David Azbell told the Mobile Press-Register the governor-elect disagrees with the committee's current level of secrecy and will change it in unspecified ways when he becomes chairman of the committee.

Even if Riley felt it was not yet his place to object to the secrecy because he was a guest, he didn't have to attend a closed meeting. Nor should he have.

If simply telling the committee members that he objected to closed meetings didn't open them, he should have stayed away instead of setting a bad example.

OTHER VIEWS

Saddam shifts the axis

By ARGUS HAMILTON
THE DAILY OKLAHOMAN

Saddam Hussein addressed the Iraqi people on television Monday and said he has completely cooperated with U.N. inspectors. He sounded desperate. In a stunning announcement that's sure to delay a U.S. attack, he revealed that he's North Korean.

Democrats promoted their new economic plan Monday as both fair and fiscally responsible. This will win them no votes at all. People vote Democrat to get fiscal responsibility the way they vote Republican to crack down on corporate greed.

President Bush proposed eliminating the tax on stock dividends Tuesday before the Economic Club of Chicago. It's easy to get a crowd in Chicago to believe that someday their stock investments will pay dividends. These people are Cubs fans.

The American Medical Association said Monday one out of five American adults is obese and one of four Americans engages in binge drinking. It's no surprise. When you dedicate a country to the pursuit of happiness, this is what happens.
— Scripps Howard News Service

Argus Hamilton can be reached
at argusjokes@aol.com

YOUR VIEWS

People denied right given businesses

On Nov. 2, President Bush signed H.R. 2215 into law prohibiting automotive manufacturers from requiring automotive dealers to sign contracts that contain predispute binding arbitration clauses.

The Washington cabal previously passed laws allowing motor vehicle dealers to impose predispute arbitration clauses on consumers — and the Supreme Court upheld that immoral law. Now those same disciples of Mammon have used their power, not authority, to grant Seventh Amendment rights to a created entity, the corporation.

Will the Washington cabal eventually say that the Bill of Rights protects only corporations and not "We the People"? Isn't that the legal system in vogue in Europe during the 1930s for governments based on the corporate state concept?

Joe Boyett
3807 Rouse Ridge Road
Montgomery

Giddy

Armond "Si" Simmons
104 Wadsworth Lane
Pell City

Offended by attacks

While I understand the motivation and personal agendas of most of Lott's critics, I don't understand the reasons for so many unwarranted personal attacks on a very reputable man who has admirably served the citizens of his state and this nation for many years. Or maybe I do. Some are inciting and inflaming the critics and others, actually encouraging the unmerited personal attacks. But it's much a-do about nothing.

Some black Americans and Democrats like Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy and Al Gore are "offended" by something Lott did not say but they want people to believe he said. That's pure racial and political bull with no literal basis in fact.

And now I am offended!

I am offended by Lott's critics' outrageous assertions that they know what the man was actually thinking inside his own head.

I am offended by obstructionist Daschle's continual attacks on our current American administration, and Tom and some other Democrats constant attempts to do anything to block the Bush administration's appointments and legislation and to gain a majority in Congress without any apparent respect for human decency, morality, ethics, established law, their responsibility to all American citizens or any real concern for our national unity.

I am offended by what state and national Democratic party leaders did in New Jersey and tried to do in other states. I am offended by Ted Kennedy's seemingly immoral personal history and by the Chappaquiddick affair in particular.

I am offended by sore-loser Gore's continued attacks on our current duly elected president

I am offended by Jesse Jackson, the "preacher" who has never pastored a church and a "politician" who has never won an election

I am offended by black Americans that insist we refer to them as African-Americans, and I am equally offended by Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, Spanish-Americans and others who insist that we address them as such.

I am offended by black Americans displaying the African flag instead of the American flag. And I feel the same way about Italians and others flying the national flag of their ancestry.

I am offended that black Americans persist in setting themselves apart and declaring differences while insisting that all they want is equality. (I am only using the term black Americans here for purposes of clarification.) We are all Americans, regardless of "race, creed or color." An American is an American is an American ... period.

I am offended by the liberal, leftist, and socialist members of the broadcast and print media "feeding the prejudicial Democratic and racial frenzy" against an honorable United States senator. And, most of all, I am offended when other congressmen and congresswomen join in the unjust criticism of one of their own colleagues.

This is the United States of America! Let us put aside all personal agendas, political ambitions and absurd racial bias, and unite as "one nation under God" and love one another. We already have enough real enemies jeopardizing our freedom, our liberty, and our American way of life. Let us not self-destruct.

I pray that we all learn to forgive offenses, real or imagined, and that we all work together for our own common good. And may God always richly bless America, and keep all of us safe!

R. T. "Dan" Hanchey
413 Idlewoods Lane
Ridgeland, Miss.

LOOK BACK

Top of page