Another More Reasoned View

The following is a reply I felt compelled to construct afer reading a reader's views in a recent edition of the much respected Pacific Coast Business Times, read throughout our Central Coast.

I read in its August 19th edition, a readers reply, entitled: … “A Reader’s view of Federal Tax Cuts” … with bemused confounded curiosity.

Other than as another Pollyanna manifesto of destructive partisanship, I could find no other way of understanding such incongruous incredulity.

The point of it appearing to be, once again, the ill conceived retro ratcheting up of the now vacuous and most wearisome endless partisan blame game, so often insipidly offered up as nurturing pablum for the masses.

Followed then, by the usual inexplicable old baseless justifications of making that old saw of: soak the rich - again, ever inanely more palatable to that very same and otherwise very discriminating and savvy audience, who are the very ones burdened with paying those taxes.

How tired are we of seeing this, and hearing this? Few discriminating citizens, any longer are fooled, by such foolhardy ill advised strident partisan commentary.

The old maxim, credited to the late Louisiana Senator Russell Long so many years ago, that so many Americans seem still to favor when considering taxation, particularly their own, seems a fitting summary reply to such innocuous commentary.
"Don't tax you, don't tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree."

If those rich trees tank, the governments’ coffers dry up as well. People, who don’t like to be taxed (many, if not most of us.) have figured out that the more undesirable alternative to taxing the rich, is to tax everybody else, i.e. themselves.

To be clear, there is a complete absence of any credible evidence or research to back up laying out a damning scenario where tax breaks to the “rich”, are not justified, and resultantly economically productive.

Moreover … If to, how much to, and how to … tax the “rich” also manifestly depends on how they will respond to attempts to being taxed further. All things being equal, it seems prudent to me to limit the extent to which any taxpayer may be induced to pursue less socially productive pursuits, in order to avoid those very taxes, upon which we all so depend.

If half or more of all American families pay little or no income taxes, who does pay income taxes? Why the "rich," of course. Nationally, they pay on average about 96% of the total taxes levied. Here in California, that lopsided statistic is not much better.

I would dare say, that very few of us would consider ourselves “rich”, by any stretch. Hard working, Yes. … Rich, No.

Consequently, if I hear that intentionally misdirecting and guilt damning term of “rich” applied to we over burdened taxpayers again, in order to obscure and distort the truths of our tax system, in some absurd attempt to falsely redistribute hard earned dollars from very deserving citizens, I may just hyperventilate, and pass out. A result, even if minuscule, can only serve to yet further reduce the tax coffers.

Most, are not “rich”, but rather small business owners, who by their own fortitude, sweat and perseverance put the larger majority of people to work, statewide and nationally, who then also pay taxes.

All the Bush legislation did was to provide obvious productive economic tax incentives from historically and well hewn proven economic principles, in order to provide: real tax breaks for people, who actually pay Federal and State income taxes, and also, then provided an additional further tax break for people, who do not pay income taxes.

Did it work, Yes. Is it perfect? No, but it beats mind boggling bashing and whining.

Is it correct then to tie California’s abysmal record on business and economic incentives and growth to the Federal government, or Bush in particular? No.

That is a stretch of illogical disconnect, that only a truly committed Bush Basher could attempt to make. And like swimming the Bering Sea in a Speedo, it doesn’t work.

So, please … “Don’t Keep Getting Stuck on Stupid.”

Having said all that, is there a need for practical changes in our debilitating progressive Federal and State tax codes (supplanted by preferred rationale protocols of economic incentives and applied pragmatic earned distribution); economic fairness; moral dictums, and effective, consistent operationally efficient management?

A system where we as citizens can elect, determine, and not unimportantly account for: who gets what, why, and where our tax dollars go?

ABSOLUTELY, without any question!

Is it realistically going to happen? Sadly, absolutely no … in the near term, at least. Certainly not tomorrow. But that doesn’t mean we can not, nor should not, push for such much needed change. Hope springs eternal.

After all without someone taking the reins to truly bring leadership and common sense to the business and economic environment here in California, we will soon become yet another third world nation, but one with a current estimated annual output of about $1.3 trillion. Sadly, quite an economic potential, to be so disabled, and threatened by poor legislative management.

The problem is not, nor ever has been, any desperate need for increasing income brought in by over burdensome taxes, nor how to squeeze more out of some partisan fallacy, of distorted Nimbyism.

But, rather, it is how to stop our elected representatives (local, state, and/or federal) from spending money they don’t have, on schemes for which they have no citizen mandate, nor personal responsibility for, seemingly beyond their egos, presumptuous legacies, and re-election schemes.

In the meantime, we citizens and taxpayers can only be actively vigilante to be sure, that we as a Nation and as a State, do not tie our horses solely to the vagaries of the rich, as was done here in California, and its recent Ponzi schemes of dot com wealth, nor then to contrastively bite the very hands that feed us.

We must also not succumb to mindless Bush bashing schemes of dalliers and dilettantes, no less unproductive than old Mr. Ponzi’s shell games. Games of personal convenience, which serve only to otherwise distract us from more practical solutions of inducing our now oft felt tyrannical tax system (as it distressfully continues to be irresponsibly propelled by unrestrained government spending), to become more responsive to we citizens, and our most necessary economic incentives. Our wallets, our hearts and our lives.

We must have an economic engine which unhesitantly employs productive economically symbiotic tax codes; constrained and responsibly reduced regulatory environments; and mandated unqualified rules of restrained spending, in order to maintain and sustain a well forged and economically independent and secure Nation, and State.