|
Modern liberalism works in a simple but effective
manner: liberals Find Problems. This
is not a difficult task, considering that the world abounds with
problems waiting to be
discovered. At the heart of these problems is the fact that we do not
live in the Garden of Eden:
that there is a scarcity of resources available for us to achieve all
of our desired goals. Thus: there
is the Problem of X number (to be discovered by sociological research)
of people over 65 with
hangnails; and the Problem that there are over 200 million Americans
who cannot afford the
BMW of their dreams. Having Found the Problem, the liberal researcher
examines it and worries
about it until it becomes a full-fledged Crisis.
A typical procedure: the liberal finds two or three
cases of people with beri- beri. On
television, we are treated to graphic portrayals of suffering beri-beri
victims, and we are flooded
with direct-mail appeals to help conquer the dread beri-beri outbreak.
After ten years, and
billions of federal tax dollars poured into beri-beri research,
beri-beri treatment centers, beri-beri
maintenance doses, and whatever, a survey of the results of the great
struggle demonstrates the
potentially disquieting fact that there is more beri-beri around than
ever before. The idea that
federal funding for beri-beri has been a waste of time and money and
perhaps even
counter-productive is quickly dismissed. Instead, the liberal draws the
lesson that beri-beri is
even more of a menace than he had thought, and that there must be a
prompt across-the-board
tripling of federal funding. And, moreover, he points out that we now
enjoy the advantage in the
struggle of having in place 200,000 highly trained beri-beri
professionals, ready to devote the rest
of their lives, on suitably lavish federal grants, to the great Cause.
Since voicing the idea that perhaps it is not the
government's place to go around Solving
Social Problems had subjected them to the withering charge of
"insensitivity" and "lack of
compassion," some conservatives latched onto a shrewd end-run strategy.
"Yes, yes,"
they agreed, "we too are convinced of the urgency of your Social
Crisis, and we thank you for
calling it to our attention. But we believe that the way to solve the
problem is not through
increased government spending and higher taxes, but by allowing private
persons and groups to
spend money solving the problem, to be financed by tax credits."
In short, the social crisis would be solved by
allowing people to keep more of their own
money, provided they spend it on: aiding hangnail research, BMWs, or
combating beri-beri.
While the fundamental philosophical problem was sidestepped, at least
people were allowed to
spend their money themselves, and taxes would fall instead of increase.
It is true that people were
still not being allowed to keep their money, period,
but at least the tax credit was a welcome step
away from government and toward private action and operation.
In 1986, however, everything changed. Conservatives
joined liberals in scorning the tax
credit as a "subsidy" (as if allowing people to spend their own money
is the same thing as giving
them some of other people's money!) and in rejecting the tax credit
approach as a "loophole," a
breach in the noble ideal of a monolithic uniformity of taxation.
Instead of trying to get people's
taxes as low as possible, reducing taxes where they could,
conservatives now adopted the ideal of
a monolithic, "fair," imposition of an equal pain on everyone in
society.
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was supposed to bring
sweet simplicity to our tax forms,
and to bring about fairness without changing total revenue. But when
Americans finally got
through wending their way through the thickets of their tax forms, they
found everything so
complex that even the IRS couldn't understand what was going on and
most of them found that
their tax payments had gone up. And there were no tax credits to bring
them solace.
But there is hope. The liberal Crisis of 1988,
displacing the Homeless of the previous year
and the Hungry of the year before, is the fact that upper-middle class,
two-wage-earner families,
the very backbone of the liberal constituency, can't afford the
child-care services to which they
would like to become accustomed. Hence, the call, heeded on all sides,
for many billions of
federal taxpayer
dollars, by which relatively low-income, single-wage-earner families
would be forced to subsidize wealthier families with working mothers.
Truly the Welfare State in
action!
In despair, and not prepared to say either (a) that
this problem is none of the
government's business, or (b) that child care would be both cheaper and
more abundant if
government regulations requiring minimum cubic feet of space, licensed
RNs on the premises,
etc. were abolished, the conservatives, in their desperation, came up
with our old, forgotten
taxpayers' friend: the tax credit. That credit would apply, not only
toward professional child care,
but also for mothers choosing to tend their children at home.
Let us hope that the tax credit will return in full
force. And then we can revive the lost
tactic, not of "closing the loopholes," but of ever-widening them,
opening them so widely for all
indeed, that everyone will be able to drive a Mack truck through them,
until that wondrous day
when the entire federal revenue system will be one gigantic loophole.
Previous Page * Next Page
Table of
Contents
|