<%
function mstrGetRelativeURL()
mstrGetRelativeURL=Request.serverVariables("PATH_INFO")
End function
%>
<%Dim CurrentURL
CurrentURL = mstrGetRelativeURL
%>
Michael Kinsley,
famed journalist and self-proclaimed "Lefty," has determined in
his article entitled, "Dividend Folly," that the Bush tax cuts
are just too complicated. You see, cutting taxes in their
entirety and qualifying the cuts, are just too confusing for the
Left's psyche. Mr. Kinsley keeps ciphering and ciphering and
just can make neither heads nor tails as to how adding value to
the stock market and putting extra cash into consumers’ hands
helps the American economy. Plain English, it seems, mystifies
the intellectual sensibilities of the Left's intelligentsia.
Mr. Kinsley points out that Mr. Bush's plan seeks to cut in its
entirety the double taxing of dividends; however, it qualifies
the cut with some rules to ensure fairness, causing Mr. Kinsley
to be befuddled. While Mr. Kinsley agrees that dividends not
being taxed will save taxpayers 364 billion
dollars, he inexplicably shifts to the necessity for the Federal
government to reciprocate by cutting expenses by 364 billion
dollars and thereby leaving a net gain of exactly $0.00 to the
economy.
Mr. Kinsley believes government spending is on a par with
consumer spending. That consumers using extra cash to invest in
business and elsewhere is of no greater import to the American
economy than the government spending on such important federal
projects as the sex life of bees, sweet potato research, or the
myriad of pork barrel spending the government is famous for,
that in fact help no one but a select chosen few.
Mr. Kinsley complains that the tax code is far too complicated
for a man of President Bush's intellect to understand, and
therefore he shouldn't be making it even more complicated.
According to Mr. Kinsley, explaining under what circumstances
cutting taxes is to be allowed, mucks up the benefits received
by cutting the taxes in the first place.
Mr. Kinsley believes in a "conservative" approach to viewing tax
cuts. Each dollar of cut taxes returns a dollar. While he
acknowledges the "Keynesian" view that "the government can stick
a dollar into the economy, stir up many dollars’ worth of
activity, and get its dollar back." He quickly dismisses that
notion, opting for a simpler dollar for dollar approach. He also
omits any reference to the reality of tax cuts, which in the
past have returned at least three dollars for every dollar of
cut.
When Mr. Kinsley refers to "fairness" as being a justification
for eliminating taxes on dividends, he quickly switches topics
to corporate greed, and while it would be nice to be fair,
cutting out a double taxed item is not really real. You see
companies that pay dividends also take other tax deductions.
Taking other tax deductions, in the mind of Mr. Kinsley, means
it’s unfair to try and be fair. In addition, dividends already
avoid being taxed if you die and pass your stock onto your
heirs; and they aren't subject to social security tax. Yes, they
still are subject to income tax twice if you are alive, but if
you don't include that in your tirade against being "fair," Mr.
Kinsley hopes people forget that.
Mr. Kinsley argues that while it is true that taxing dividends
"discourages investment and harms the economy in the long run,"
there must be a better a way. Mr. Kinsley suggests equality in
taxing economic activity, you see, cutting out a tax in one area
"increases the burden" on other taxes. What that exactly means
or why that matters is not explained. However, as a sound bite,
it resonates with ominous predictions of horrors that will
befall all taxpayers if tax fairness is instituted and the
economy is given a boost.
Mr. Kinsley believes that the 364 billion dollars that would
have been taxed but hopefully will no longer be, plays a small
role in the economy. Apparently Mr. Kinsley's appetite for what
constitutes a major role, or even a plain run of the mill "role"
in the lives of individual taxpayers is a bit more than the
amounts being envisioned. Elitists, it appears, will not allow
the reality of the situation to interfere or affect their
preconceived notions of what is fair or right. If it doesn't
suit their agenda, which calls for bigger government and the
capital to pay for it, any excuse, any disparaging remarks,
whether relevant, appropriate or even factual do not
fit in.
Finally, Mr. Kinsley cannot help himself but to take a couple of
jabs at President Bush personally, whether he accuses our
President of a lack of intelligence or of his own ideas, or that
the President is too stubborn to allow discourse, Mr. Kinsley
telegraphs his true belief that anything that may come out of
this Republican Administration must be opposed even if doing so
makes you look like a jackass.
In his article, Mr. Kinsley quotes from the lyrics of a Bob
Dylan song, "you can’t criticize what you don’t understand."
Apparently Mr. Kinsley proved otherwise.
