Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Dreaming Big: What's Missing
by Tom Bozzo
As a follow-up to the previous post on Matt Stoller's Democratic Party manifesto, here are two big issues that were unaddressed. I have no doubt that they are far more contentious even within the party, and I don't pretend to be trying too hard to sugarcoat them for mass consumption:
- Restore fiscal responsibility; simplify and improve the fairness of the tax code. The government is not collecting remotely enough revenue to pay for either party's spending. (Yeah, I remember Mondale.) Given that the vast majority of the "benefits" of the Bush tax shifts are enjoyed by the very wealthy, much of this can be rectified without increasing the tax burden for the vast majority of taxpayers. We can pay the bills now or later, with interest.
- Ensure that the military meets actual threats to national security at reasonable cost to the taxpayer. We're spending prepare for World War III level money ($466 billion in FY 2004) without a World War III-level organized military threat. Clearly, a lot of this reflects the massive misallocation of resources to the Iraq debacle, as well as weapon acquisition boondoggles such as strategic missile defense. Republican "credibility" on defense issues tends to boil down to "spend, spend, spend." Actually articulating needs and the amount of money required would be a big improvement, though I have no illusions that the other side wants to raise the tone of the debate. But the closer we get to a good libertarian defense budget, the less revenue is required for the point above.
Comments:
<< Home
I think both of these are good points, and I especially like the emphasis on combining tax reform with a fairer tax code.
Since we've apparently decided by common rhetorical assent that the ideal tax return should be able to fit on a postcard, this is an important point.
The anti-tax, anti-government folks would have us believe that even things as simple as progressive tax rates are incompatible with an easy tax return -- multiplication can be tricky, I guess. They argue this point with such conviction that I think that getting a flat tax is the whole point of "tax reform".
We'll have much better success opposing a flat tax if our opposition to it is tied to our own tax reform and a commitment to sustainable government in general.
Since we've apparently decided by common rhetorical assent that the ideal tax return should be able to fit on a postcard, this is an important point.
The anti-tax, anti-government folks would have us believe that even things as simple as progressive tax rates are incompatible with an easy tax return -- multiplication can be tricky, I guess. They argue this point with such conviction that I think that getting a flat tax is the whole point of "tax reform".
We'll have much better success opposing a flat tax if our opposition to it is tied to our own tax reform and a commitment to sustainable government in general.
Ben: Yes, exactly. What makes the tax code more complicated are, for the most part, the parts that make it less fair -- notably, preferences for types of income that most workers don't earn, or earn in minimal amounts.
For that reason, I like the recent Wyden proposal with a common set of rates for all individual income. I'm less keen on Wyden's adoption of the fewer brackets = better/fairer/simpler pseudo-equation, but if it's the sort of thing that plays well, I can live with it.
Post a Comment
For that reason, I like the recent Wyden proposal with a common set of rates for all individual income. I'm less keen on Wyden's adoption of the fewer brackets = better/fairer/simpler pseudo-equation, but if it's the sort of thing that plays well, I can live with it.
<< Home
