It's certainly worth reading all of Paul Krugman's column, but if I'll justify the existence of this site by pulling out the good parts anyway.
Got that? A memo directing federal agencies that there will be cuts coming -- but only after the election -- in programs that Bush has been taking credit for in his campaign.
I can't back that assertion with official numbers, because under Mr. Bush the Treasury Department has stopped releasing information on the distribution of tax cuts by income level.
(emphasis mine)
How about that? The wealth of our nation will transfer to the already very rich, but we can't prove it because they've stopped releasing information on tax cuts. The numbers looks bad? Stop letting people see them.
Krugman does dig up numbers -- from other sources, since our government isn't talking -- the big one being the much touted average tax reduction of $1,448 per family.
A little something about averages: they can be very misleading. A hackneyed example: I'm sitting in this room here, typing away. My income right now is hovering right around $0. For the sake of argument, let's say I make $5000 this year. Suddenly there's a knock at the door. Why, it's Bill Gates, stoppin' by for a chai latte! Bill Gates makes, oh, let's say $100,000,000 a year.
Now let's figure out the average income of the people in my apartment: Okay, 100,000,000 plus 5000 is 100,005,000, divided by 2 people in the apartment, that comes to... $50,002,500. And there you go, you could accurately say that the average income in my apartment is over 50 million dollars. Does this make me a millionaire?
This is exactly the kind of math that the Bushies are using when they talk about "average tax reductions per family." Some families -- very few -- are getting HUGE tax reductions, while most families get very small reductions, if any.
Most of us probably remember getting those nice $300 checks in the mail. It's like free money, it's hard not to like. But there's a small problem: it's a lie. It's nothing more than a bribe for the votes of people who don't know much about economics, which includes most of us. You get a nice check in the mail and take the family out to dinner, or better yet, save it. "Wow, thanks Mr. Bush!" Meanwhile, your Social Security benefits are being cut and your children have 15 year old textbooks. Is it worth it?
Krugman: "It's as if someone expected gratitude for giving you a gift, when he actually bought it using your credit card."
There's a basic principle of economics that many Americans seem to be missing: There's no such thing as a free lunch. This is well established. You can't get something for nothing. If you increase spending on one thing, and don't raise taxes or find another way to increase revenue, something has to be cut.
Lately there's been a lot of talk about gas prices. It's the same thing. People believe it is their inalienable right to both drive a car that gets 10 miles to a gallon of gas, and to pay $1.25 for that gallon. Sorry, you have to choose.
Right now, it seems that the 2004 election will be a referendum on Mr. Bush's calamitous foreign policy. But something else is at stake: whether he and his party can lock in the unassailable political position they need to proceed with their pro-rich, anti-middle-class economic strategy. And no, I'm not engaging in class warfare. They are.
