|
 t
seems President George Bush has imposed an innovative series of
workplace rules at the White House. Staffers have
been instructed to be on time, practice common courtesy and dress
appropriately. (This probably spells an end to the crack pipes on
the White House Christmas tree, too.)
President Clinton's economic adviser Gene Sperling dismissed the
adult environment at the Bush White House as the serendipity of
having a budget surplus. He explained that the endless all-night
jam sessions with panty-less women was the result of "how dramatically
different it was to be in a time of deficits." (The connection between
having to make important decisions and creating an environment in
which it was impossible to make important decisions remains a bit
murky.)
By contrast, the Clinton administration had to suffer: "We literally
had to present Clinton with scores of potential cuts which could
even cost members of Congress or the president himself an election."
What were those programs again? Clinton's big initiatives during
his first year in office consisted of: (1) trying to socialize the
nation's health care, and (2) attempting to turn the U.S. armed
forces into a homosexual focus group. It took Newt Gingrich and
the Republicans coming to power to give Americans a puny tax cut.
But in those first few years when he was working with his own party,
Clinton raised taxes and created new government programs. No wonder
it took interminable hippie jam sessions to put together a budget.
Clinton had to figure out precisely how much of a lie his campaign
promise of a "middle class tax cut" was going to be.
In addition to having cleared out the pizza boxes, women's panties
and plastic cups littering the White House, the calming wind of
the Bush administration has created genuine "new Democrats" —
Democrats with a passion for fiscal austerity. As a theoretical
matter, they are all for a tax cut. But alas, they are slaves to
a balanced budget, and "we" just can't "afford" it right now.
They are, of course, lying. They want our "muffler money" to protect
the revenue flow for their useless federal programs.
But the point is: They don't say that. Polls must be telling Democrats
they can't support taxes by appealing to Americans' love of government
programs anymore. Their current propaganda proves that wonderful
government programs aren't selling. Even the Democrats' class-envy
demagoguery has lost steam. People hear that the Bush tax cut will
give "the rich" a hundred kazillion dollars back, and the average
cluck will only get $200 back — and they think: "OK, gimme
my $200."
Consequently, Democrats are left having to hoodwink stupid Republicans
(or Maine senators) and the broader public by insisting they can't
sleep at night thinking about the debt. Just as abortion-loving
Democrats maintain that no one is in favor of abortion, they now
claim they also want to make taxes safe, legal and rare. They really
do. They just want to balance the budget "first."
One of their ingenious devices for making abortion "rare" was to
support a procedure that involves suctioning the brains out of a
half-born baby. This is pretty much how their fiscal austerity plan
would work, too. Gee, one crackerjack method of making something
"rare" is to throw people in prison if they do it. (Why do they
want to make abortion "rare" anyway? Is it a little bit of a murder?)
And one way to balance the budget is to stop spending money like
drunken sailors.
But somehow Democrats and Maine Republicans never get around to
the spending part of their fiscal austerity plan. All we know is
that it's going to require a lot of taxes. If their mania for a
balanced budget is so all-consuming, why can't they ever tell us
which useless government bureaucracies they intend to stop lavishing
money on?
Any politician who cannot agree with the proposition that no American
should send more than a third of what he earns to the federal government
ought to be able to say how much — ideally — the government
should be taking. How about 40 percent? Is that just right? When
will we have attained the perfect tax nirvana according to the Democratic
Party?
When Reagan was elected, this country had 80 percent marginal tax
rates. That barbarism was expunged a mere 18 years ago — and
no thanks to the Democrats. It is a more astonishing fact that 18
years ago the marginal tax rate in the United States of America
was 80 percent than that lobotomies were an accepted medical practice
a couple decades back.
Get your mufflers now — before Democrats figure out a way to
make taxes any more "rare."
|
