Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review April 16, 2003 / 14 Nissan, 5763

James K. Glassman

Jim Glassman
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Victory not enough |
Three months ago, President Bush proposed reviving the economy with a package that would cut the tax bills of 92 million Americans. The president has had other things on his mind since then, and the opposition of only a few Senators pared the package back in the budget resolution last week. But there's still a chance that nearly everything the president wants will become law later this year. Let's hope so.

Our success in Iraq will lift the fog of geopolitical uncertainty that's stifled the economy and set the stage for a recovery. But by itself, this victory is not nearly enough. To get people back to work, and to start quickly once more down the road to prosperity, America urgently needs a smart and significant tax cut.

It was almost 40 years ago that a Democratic president, John F. Kennedy, also faced with national-security threats and a stock market decline, came to the same conclusion. On Dec. 14, 1962, he urged Congress to "reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative that are imposed by our present tax system. Corporate taxes were cut and rates in the top personal brackets were reduced 21 percent. And the economy and the market took off.

As good as Kennedy's plan was, Bush's is better. It makes the reductions in tax rates that were enacted in 2001 effective this year, rather than far into the future. It sets a new bottom tax bracket of 10 percent, rather than the current 15 percent. It reduces the marriage penalty this year, instead of waiting until 2009, cutting taxes for 46 million couples. It raises the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 this year instead of 2010, so a middle-income family with two children would get an extra $800 taken right off its tax bill, in many cases cutting it by half or more.

The package would also help small businesses by letting them deduct $75,000 a year (instead of the current $25,000) for purchases of computers and other capital investments.

And, in the most profound change of all, it would end the double taxation of dividends. Nearly half of all American families own stock. They would no longer have to pay taxes on the dividends they receive.

All of these changes would put more money - an average of $1,083 - into the pockets of nearly all taxpayers, and, because the Treasury would reduce withholding taxes immediately, Americans would be able spend the extra cash or invest it to boost the economy at a critical time. According to the Council of Economic Advisors, the increased economic activity that would result would create 1.4 million new jobs by the end of 2004.

How can a few Senators oppose a bill to rejuvenate the economy?

They are well-meaning but misguided. Their main worry is that the gap between Washington's expenditures and its tax revenues - that is, the federal deficit - is widening. Certainly, deficits can't be ignored, but put them in perspective. Compared with the size of our economy, the U.S. deficit is the lowest among all industrial nations. Also, the president's proposal would reduce tax revenues by $726 billion over 10 years. But during that time, our total Gross Domestic Product, or national economic output, will be about 200 times as great. In fact, the only problem with the president's package is that, in an economy which, even today, is generating a GDP of more than $10 trillion (greater than the next five countries combined), the tax cuts may be too small.

Politicians need to think long and hard before they spend federal dollars. Once they decide, then they have two ways to get the money to pay the bills: taxes or loans. The effects are pretty much the same when the economy is good. But when it is struggling, as it is today, many economists believe it is better to borrow - especially at the low interest rates that currently prevail. There's nothing wrong with borrowing. You do it yourself when you buy a house. The question is whether you burden yourself with too much debt.

But think of it this way. The federal debt is about one-third of GDP. That's the equivalent of a mortgage (plus all credit-card, auto and other debt) of about $20,000 for a family making $60,000 a year - not troublesome at all, especially if income is rising. And, under the president's plan, the proportion of debt will fall dramatically over time, until it is less than one-sixth of GDP.

Not only would the dividend-tax change give Americans more money to spend and invest, it would increase the value of the stocks that half of all U.S. families own - even stocks held in tax-advantaged accounts like IRAs and 401(k) plans. All economists agree that, by increasing the after-tax returns on stocks, the Bush proposal would raise the prices of those stocks in the market. How much? At least 10 percent and probably more.

This gain in wealth will make families more secure about increasing their spending and investing - at just the right time.

Yes, the victory in Iraq liberated millions and, by removing troubling uncertainty, set the stage for an economic recovery. But without the tax package, that recovery will be postponed, more jobs will be lost, and more families will be hurt. It's time for recalcitrant Senators to stop playing politics and back this sensible package.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor James K. Glassman is the host of Tech Central Station. Comment by clicking here.


02/21/03: Profile in Conservative Courage
02/11/03: It's the war, stupid
02/03/03: Nothing wrong with breaking a buck
01/17/03: Dogs of the Dow
01/09/03: Eyes on the prizes
12/10/02: Time to kill, not coddle
12/02/02: Time for a drug binge?
11/13/02: The world, your oyster
10/28/02: Why stocks don't stink
10/09/02: The debt bet
09/30/02: Caution, competition ahead
09/19/02: Shopping for opportunities
08/26/02: Stop the Dumb Bond jokes
08/20/02: Moving on from 'sustainablity'
08/06/02: Put Dow doubts to rest
07/29/02: Your money for your life
07/15/02: Have your cake
07/09/02: Competition cure-all
06/26/02: Rebalancing Act
06/21/02: Technology Back on Track
06/19/02: Star Power?
06/12/02: The Beautiful Line
06/10/02: Squashing broadband
06/06/02: Frank investing advice
06/04/02: Say it ain't so, George
05/29/02: He moves in mysterious ways
05/22/02: Reel in these stocks
05/15/02: It's a "small" world
05/08/02: Goldi-stocks
05/02/02: Japanese stock growth?
04/30/02: Trust the Bells?
04/24/02: Being there is best revenge
04/18/02: I'm a Seoul man
04/16/02: Analyze this
04/09/02: The Dot.Con con game
03/21/02: The companies you keep
02/28/02: Trusting monopolists
02/22/02: How not to get taken when buying stocks
02/06/02: Investing After 9/11
01/30/02: Blue Light Specials? Advice on snapping-up K-Mart or Enron stock
01/24/02: Dare to be obscure
01/16/02: Bank on this
01/10/02: What goes down...
01/04/02: An asset-focused investor finds 'deep value' stocks
12/26/01: High-Tech Funds Low On Tech
12/19/01: Tech Sector: Blodget, Meeker, and You
12/12/01: Enron's lessons: Be skeptical of experts
12/04/01: CLECs alive and well, but not if Tauzin-Dingell passes
11/15/01: The "Next Big Thing" in Technology?
10/30/01: A National I.D. Card? Yes; Run By Larry Ellison? No
10/25/01: Without Bayer, we're bare to bioterror
10/18/01: The Battle of Biotech
10/05/01: Two Techs for Tough Times
09/26/01: The Information War
09/05/01: Tech firms built to last through tough times
08/23/01: Stocks on the A-List
08/17/01: Labor and management finding online learning to their liking
08/08/01: Game makers poised to profit
07/19/01: Trade Promotion Authority: High-Techís Key Component for Competitiveness
07/12/01: Nothingís arbitrary about the contrarians
06/27/01: Look to Politics to Find Broadband's Market Cap Shortfall
06/22/01: Tech Commodity Buys Available for Mining
06/18/01: The Blackout Portfolio
06/14/01: The conservation myth stars as latest (sub)urban legend
06/07/01: Will America go high tech on the high seas?
06/05/01: 'Price gouging' doesn't cut it as reason for rising energy prices
06/01/01: Authentication tools opening up opportunities in online security
05/25/01: 'Price gouging' doesnít cut it as reason for rising energy prices
05/21/01: Banking on High-Tech Education
05/17/01: It's No Time to Go Wobbly on Kyoto
05/02/01: Diversify with techís leaders
04/26/01: To Revive The New Economy, Release A Chokehold   —   Break Up The Bells
04/24/01: Whoís To Blame For Broadband Crisis? Wired Article Points To Bells
04/19/01: The Bush Budget
04/12/01: To revive The New Economy, release a chokehold --- break up the Bells
04/04/01: Even as stocks have fallen, the Net keeps booming
03/28/01: Whereís The Profit In Biotech Future?
03/22/01: The Joy of Debt: The last thing we should want is a U.S. Treasury flush with cash
03/19/01: 'Defensive' Stocks in the NASDAQ
03/15/01: Bush administration must say no to Jane and Kyoto
03/08/01: Time to buy small caps? Consider these five great techs
03/01/01: Billís and Larryís continued political adventures
02/26/01: Chips on the Dips?
02/23/01: How Tauzin Can Keep His Word And Stop Telecom "Remonopolization"
02/13/01: Consumers, WAKE UP! Middlemen are ripping you off
02/02/01: Publicity-Seeking Politicians and Contingency-Fee Lawyers Corrupt the Law
01/26/01: DoubleClick, eBay And Their Promising Ilk
01/24/01: Will Cyberspace Look Like France or America?
12/27/00: Cut interest, taxes and regulation to save high-tech economy
12/20/00: Close, But No Big Czar
12/15/00: A Down Year? Maybe. But Letís Put It in Perspective
12/13/00: Clintonís sorry midnight race into history
12/07/00: Is Telecomís Future The Bells, The Bells, and Only The Bells?
12/01/00: Money talks and walks in election aftermath
11/29/00: Climate Treaty Deadlock Shows Lack of Consensus and Common Sense
11/23/00: Climate change participants donít listen to reasons for uncertainty
11/21/00: Will Regulators Create a Recession?
11/14/00: The Election and the Market
10/26/00: Hang on for the long term
10/25/00: On privacy, one size doesnít fit all
10/24/00: Perish the bearish thought
10/19/00: Beating hunger --- the biggest prize
10/13/00: Way to play biotech
10/12/00: Bush vs. Gore on Technology
10/11/00: Global Climate Scare: Fools Rush In
10/05/00: Avoid the Apple Trap
10/03/00: Goodbye, anti-Microsoft crusader --- and good riddance
09/29/00: Should You Invest in Tech IPOs?
09/27/00: Could technology end airline delays?
09/22/00: Donít Forget Small Caps
09/20/00: Is the New York Times Rooting for Disaster?
09/13/00: The Best Argument Against Net Regulation
08/30/00: Political Risk in Big Drug Stocks
07/27/00: Tech Dividends
07/25/00: Government Privacy Violators
07/20/00: If I Had to Pick One Tech Stock
07/18/00: Our Favorite Lawsuit
07/13/00: Silicon Valley East
07/11/00: Election 2000: Year of the Investor Class?
07/07/00: Adventures on the
07/06/00:The Difference Between Bill Gates and Larry Ellison
06/29/00: In the Chips
06/27/00: Free market wins in Federal Court!
06/22/00: Wireless Bargains?
06/20/00: Is Your SUV Warming the Planet?
06/15/00: Shopping for Government
06/13/00: Top 10 Tech Stocks
06/08/00: Riding the eBook Wave
06/06/00: "The Last Mile"
06/02/00: Keep Buying!
05/31/00: Who Asked the FTC to Regulate Online Privacy?
05/25/00: "When Itís Time to Sell"
05/23/00: End the "Telephone Tax"
05/16/00: Time Warner Gets a Bad Rap

© 2002, Tech Central Station