by Molly Ivins


Tax plan would be funny if . . . well, no, it
wouldn't

AUSTIN -- President Bush's maiden address
to the nation was classic Dubya: He talks
moderate and governs right. And this is never
more true than on economic issues.

Again, with Bush, what you see is not what you
get. What you hear is not what you get. What
you get is what you get.

One is tempted to conclude, "Surely he jests."

The man cannot possibly want us to sign off
on an enormous tax cut designed to benefit
the rich without telling us what will be cut in
return. Houston, we have a problem. Earth to
Karl Rove: Beam me up, Scotty.

In budgets, as in bridges, the devil is in the
details, and the details of the amorphous plan
that Bush presented Tuesday night are grim
indeed.

Just the other day I had occasion to cite one of
the Great Questions of government, which is:
What the Hell Will They Do To Us Next?
Tuesday night's maiden speech before
Congress brought up another always-timely
query: How Dumb Do They Think We Are?

This tax cut is carefully back-loaded: We won't
fully feel its effects until 10 years into the
future, yet we have to start cutting already to
accommodate the little wedge of it that will
affect this budget.

To use one of the great legislative cliches of
all time, this year's tax cut is the head of the
camel under the tent. And if you think the head
causes problems, wait'll you see what the rest
of the beast does when it's inside.

For all the size of the federal budget, the
amount available for discretionary spending is
relatively small, and within that small portion
are most of the efforts to use government
flexibly and intelligently.

Again, to cut basic scientific research is sheer
folly. To cut job training programs is not only
cruel but stupid. To cut health and human
service programs is to abandon investments
in people; as we have long known, the earlier
we can invest in a child's health and
education, the more money we save in the
long run.

Bush's budget is irrefutably the work of old
Reaganites who do not like government and
believe that the best way to deal with it is to
starve it to death.

According to `The Wall Street Journal,' the
chief architects of Bush's budget are John
Cogan of the ultra-conservative Hoover
Institution at Stanford, and Mitch Daniels, a
former executive at Eli Lilly & Co., newly
named head of the Office of Management and
Budget.

Relying on the wide range of opinion available
from such sources at the Heritage Foundation
and Citizens Against Government Waste, a
span that covers the gamut from A to B, Cogan
and his team noodled the numbers.

Bush so clearly represents a change of
rhetoric without a change of intent that it's
almost painful. Ronald Reagan used to go
around saying, "Government is not the
solution; government is the problem." Newt
Gingrich thought so little of the institution that
he shut it down twice.

I say that government is neither the problem
nor the solution. It is just a tool. Whether you
put the tool to good use or bad, whether you
use it wisely or carelessly, is not the fault of
the tool.

I can't say that I see we're better off for paying
for a $1.5 million statue of the Roman god
Vulcan in honor of Alabama steelworkers --
one of the splendid items of pork spotted by
Cogan's team -- but it's certain that some
Alabama steelworkers are going to need job
retraining if we keep making trade pacts with
no labor or environmental floors.

Perhaps the single funniest argument I have
heard in favor of Bush's tax cut for the rich is
from CNN's Tucker Carlson, who crossly
announced that it is vulgar -- vulgar -- to point
out that the rich are going to get ever so much
more out of this tax cut than everybody else.
Quite, quite vulgar to point out that in a society
already deeply scarred by the dramatically
growing gap between the rich and everyone
else, a tax cut that transfers yet more wealth
into the hands of the rich while shifting more
of the burden of taxation to everyone else is a
truly bad idea.

However, I believe it is even more vulgar -- in
fact, crass, stupid and greedy -- to actually
pass such a tax cut.

I believe it is vulgar that this tax cut is
proposed by the wealthiest Cabinet in history;
seven of them are worth more than $10
million, and 11 of the remaining 12 are worth
at least $1 million apiece. (Ag Secretary Ann
Veneman is the pauper in the bunch, worth
only $680,000, according to `The Guardian' of
London.)

One of Bush's "ordinary" couples, Paul and
Debbie Peterson, will get a tax cut of $1,100 a
year. Bush himself will get more than 60 times
that. I find that a little vulgar.

According to the Census Bureau, 3.7 million
Americans suffer from hunger as a result of
being unable to buy basic foods. About 9
million households have "uncertain access to
food." I find that truly vulgar.

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the
`Star-Telegram.' You can reach her at 1005
Congress Ave., Suite 920, Austin, TX 78701;
(512) 476-8908; or
mollyivins@star-telegram.com.