4 Opinion Page 8 Friday, July 24, 1981 The Michigan Daily Tax cuts screw the lower class 4 Ah-one, ah-two, ready steady go! It's that time of the year in Washington, and everybody on the Potomic is doing the Tax Cut Shuf- fle. Take two steps to the right and three steps back- ward, please. And be careful not to tread on the truly needy. RONALD REAGAN'S 25 percent solution is perhaps the most drastic and tragic example of man's superstitious belief in corporate America. Presumably, the across-the-board cut will "stimulate growth" in the economy by putting more money into By Fred Schill porate America will choose to hedge its bets. In short, that extra money will end up in the bank rather than in the pockets of the currently unemployed. Meanwhile, those unemployed masses will con- tinue to suffer, their misery only aggravated by the tax cuts. You see, that glorious 25 percent cut, by its across-the-board nature, will return large sums of money to those whom already have plenty. Only a The Left andRight fight. Round 2 year, will receive a $27 dollar tax cut. In return, food stamp and welfare benefits are being dashed because many recipients are not "truly needy." Aid to Dependent Children support is being gutted, a terrible blow to the most vulnerable of poor people-children. Social Security benefits-which are most needed by the most impoverished-are being cut back. All in the name of refunding taxes and stimulating economic growth-in the hope that, maybe, inflation and unemployment will ease. SUPPLY-SIDE economics, Reagan calls it. Voodoo economics, his vice president called it, when he was running against Ronny and not yet a devoted yes man. It is a policy that dismays our allies, by con- straining their own markets with sky-high interest rates, and causes deep resentment in many sectors of American society: within the victimized social programs, the lower classes, the peace-loving doves. As we begin the period of Wait and See in this pathetic Tax Cut Shuffle, we ask ourselves, "Is it all worth the social turmoil?" Hardly. The stupidity of the supple-side approach was heat captured in a recent Doonesbury comic strip. After explaining the twisted logic to Mark, in a radio inter- view for his campus station, a spokesman for the supply-siders asked him, "Now, with that $27 in your hand, what would you do with it?" "I don't know, dinner and a movie?" is Mark's honest response. "No, no, wrong psychology," the spokesman says, "You'd invest ina steel mill!" Of course. Hippity hop. 4 the private sector, and out of the federal government. The savings we would all enjoy, or so goes the logic, would be pumped back into the economy. Investmen- ts would soar, new businesses would emerge. Unem- ployment would plummet while inflation would ease. One, two, one two three. Isn't this fun? It does not seem to have occurred to anyone that, even if business is stimulated by investments, the private sector might very well put the extra money in its corporate pocket. Indeed, given the uncertain economic climate and the failure of business from Joe's Garage to Chrysler, it is very likely that cor- small fraction of the cuts will go to those making less than $15,000 a year. CURRENTLY, the have-nots will be feeding the theoretical growth of industry and further enrich- ment of the rich with their own vital resources. That 25 percent cut will result in a leaner federal budget. Since it is necessary to spend larger sums in order to more effectively decimate the Reds (and bankroll the defense industry), the reductions wraught by the tax cuts must come from social programs. Swing your partner 'round and 'round. So the family of four, struggling along on $10,000 a 4 The Michigan Daily Vol. XCI, No. 47-S Ninety Years of Editorial Freedom Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan Renew Voting Rights Act THE STORM IS approaching, and it's time to get ready. With the 1965 Voting Rights Act approaching its expiration date early next year, preparations must begin to ensure that it will be renewed. Thus far, the Reagan ad- ministration-with the backing of Sen. Strom Thurmond and Sen. Jesse Helms-has ex- pressed doubts that this will happen. The act, which provides for easier access to the polls for minorities, has thus far been an unqualified success. Before 1965, state and local governments could arbitrarily place restrictions on voting. Since 1965, more than 1.5 million Southern blacks have registered to vote. In specific towns, counties, and states, political par- ticipation has increased greatly. Thurmond and Helms, both representing Southern statesoppose the act, regarding it as federal encroachment in a local matter. President Reagan should think twice about this view, consider those of the countless others in Washington who disagree, and see that the act is renewed quickly, with minimal storm damage. 4 Tax cuts are proper means of redistributing wealth It is interesting that Congress passed the Reagan budget figure quickly, but is mired in its attem- pt to formulate a tax cut bill. It must be easier to decide how to spend other people's money than it is to decide how much to rob them of. The Kemp-Roth tax cut bill has been in the news. for quite a while now, but since the President has embraced the proposal, critics have been gleefully ripping it and invent- ing better ways to cut taxes. Their arguments have more holes in them than a doughnut shop. THE PRESIDENT, Jack Kemp, and Phillip Roth advocate the bill because everybody will benefit equally, with an added boost to the economy. A central point of controversy is the permanent reduction in potential federal income for three years. Realizing that federal spending, now out of control, must be cut off at the source, a reduction in federal income is a decided advantage. It is a second point that has gained the most attention and has been subjected to the most distor- tion. Because the proposed tax cut would be proportional to in- come in the first place, the benefits would also be propor- tional. The argument that the rich will get more back than the By Mark Gindin poor is obvious, but not a cause for alarm. THE WELL-OFF will of course get more money back, they put more money in to begin with. But they only get back a quarter of what they put in, just like everyone else. To say they shouldn't get as much money back as poorer people raises a different argument. The question arises as to who deser.ves the money. "Why. should the wage-earners keep all their earnings? The poor need it more," is a familiar battle cry-a cry that is sickening. The Democratic "alternative" is molded with the cry in mind. The battle cry is along the lines of the progressive income tax. First of all, the people with money are the ones who invest and save it. This is undeniable, even by a Democrat. By in- vesting and saving, the money is used to enlarge the economic pie. Again undeniable. EVERYBODY BENEFITS from a larger pie from which to cut slices, and by the previous calculation, the Reagan tax cut would enlarge the pie. The "alternative" will reduce the pie development in the name of equality, also used as justification for "from each ac- cording to his ability, to each ac- cording to his need," the famous socialist theory. Socialism enters the picture under the progressive income tax and the Democratic "alter- native," whether they admit it or not. By targeting cuts, they will effectively give money to those who did not earn it. Hut that's OK, everybody will be equal. What better way to make a nation of individuals into a society of equals. As Karl Marx said, the first step toward a utopian state was "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax." The tax burden increased 80 percent during the Carter ad- ministration and is still rising due to the windfall profits tax, the yearly Social Security tax in- creases, and the well-publicized bracket-creep, whereby wage earners are pushed into higher tax brackets by inflation. Any move to cut taxes in- creases the economic pie. There is more pie for everybody. Twen- ty five percent across-the-board wouldbe the fairest plan of all. The Democratic alternative is only a political game in the name of social equality, played by ideologues in their quest for more justice for some. And they soun- ded so sincere, too. Fred Schill and Mark Gin- din go at each other every Friday on this page. 4 4 i i