At the height of the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy stood
in front of the nation and boldly declared that sacrifice was
something required of all Americans. When he proclaimed “Ask
not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your
country,” the American public took him seriously and was
willing to forego short-term luxuries in exchange for long-term
benefits. How times have changed!
Today, at the height of our war against Iraq, President George
W. Bush is declaring a lot of things to the American public, but a
call to sacrifice is not among the White House’s
declarations.
Instead of focusing on issues that benefit the common good, Bush
has been playing to America’s greed, promising huge tax cuts
for those who don’t need it. It seems rather hypocritical of
the Bush administration to call on some Americans (our troops
fighting in Iraq) to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country,
while giving benefits to others (the wealthy targets of the tax
cut).
If the Bush administration were to have a motto, it could easily
be “Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your
country can do for your bank account.” Now, I’m not
necessarily criticizing the need for a tax cut. Some economists,
who know a lot more than I do about governmental fiscal policy,
seem to think it’s a pretty good idea. I’m criticizing
Bush’s timing. It’s completely inappropriate to be
discussing a huge tax cut for the rich while soldiers, many of them
poor, are dying.
Bush sends a mixed message to the American people when he asks
so much from our troops ““ those he calls “our best
citizens” ““ and so little from those who can afford to
give much more.
Bush’s proposal calls for a $674 billion tax cut and its
centerpiece is a $300 billion tax reduction resulting from the
elimination of the dividend tax. If you think I’m playing
class warfare when I call it a tax cut for the rich, take a look at
the numbers.
Let’s use our soldiers as an example. Mark Shields, a
nationally known columnist and CNN commentator writes,
“Bush’s tax break won’t do much for those
Americans doing the fighting, you see, because the base pay for a
staff sergeant is $21,247.20 and for a first lieutenant it’s
$30,182.40, which would mean an average tax-cut for all American
service personnel in those ranks or below of approximately
$148.” That’s not enough to buy a quarter’s worth
of books at the UCLA bookstore!
What about the wealthiest Americans? Don’t worry;
they’re well taken care of. Under Bush’s plan, someone
pulling in about one million dollars per year will get a tax break
of approximately $90,222 ““ more than enough to pay for books,
housing and tuition at UCLA for over six years. A tax cut for the
wealthy? Obviously. Does it help those who are currently risking
their lives to defend us? Not at all.
I’m not the only one who thinks this is the wrong time to
discuss a huge tax cuts.
In his first “60 Minutes” debate with Bob Dole, Bill
Clinton stated, “Never before have we had a big tax cut in
times of national crisis. Lincoln didn’t. FDR didn’t.
With over 200,000 young Americans in the Persian Gulf, we
shouldn’t. It’s wrong and it’s bad
economics.” Admittedly, Clinton isn’t a very unbiased
source of criticism, but he makes a good point.
Traditionally, the United States has waited until the bullets
stop flying to talk tax cuts. This is a good precedent to
follow.
Victory in Iraq is a good thing and tax cuts are a good thing,
just not together. With the war approaching a speedy end, President
Bush should realize that his tax cuts can wait a few months out of
respect for our soldiers. Kennedy’s call for sacrifice is as
applicable today as it was 40 years ago. Let’s hope that Bush
echoes his call and reminds people that in times of national
crisis, Americans, both rich and poor, need to do whatever they can
for their country. We can wait on the benefits of what our country
can do for us.
Ludlow is a second-year political science student. E-mail him at
dludlow@media.ucla.edu.