`nutcracker' Enlivens The Holiday

Alex Wrobleski 
Dec. 17, 1994 
Alex A. Wrobleski, 73, Of North Gates Avenue, Kingston, Died Saturday In 
Nesbitt Memorial Hospital, Kingston.

Wednesday, December 21, 1994 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Page: 13A 





Playing around with tax cuts is hazardous to taxpayers' health &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Oh boy, the children have found the cookie jar, and they're beginning to
push and shove, to say nasty things to each other, each trying to corner the
biggest share, each trying to take away what another has claimed. There'll be
no rest until the jar is empty and the cookies eatenThen, oh then, the
commotion will be:"Ma, I don't feel good. I got a stomach ache, or something." &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; And that's how the tax-cut fever goes. One child says he's King of the
Mountain because he'll make big tax cuts (for some) right away, while another
says he'll make even bigger cuts -- but with graduated increases spread over
several years and for more people (but not all). &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Both are confounded by presidential aspirants -- Phil Gramm on one side and
Richard Gephardt on the other -- each promising different but "better"
distribution of all that revenue coming into the federal treasury. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 How will they pay for it? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Well, who thinks of that at this time of year? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Oh, there are some revealing suggestions, all of them for cutting spending.
One from the Republican side would reform welfare by cutting federal funding
by at least 30 percent and then tossing that bag of bones to the states to
fund and handle. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Oddly, it was only 15 years ago when there was talk of relieving the states
of that awesome burden by having all welfare assumed by the federal
government. At least, so the thinking went, the administration and benefits
would be uniform throughout the nation and the migration of poor to the most
charitable states would end. But under the Reagan administration, federal
funding was cut by at least 30 percent, and the states were left holding the
bag. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Well, so the federal funding is cut by another 30 percent. The poor don't
vote. Besides, the money saved will pay for the tax cuts. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Still another proposal, this from the White House, would chop funds (and
nearly whole departments) from a wide range of social commitments of the
federal government. One of these reportedly is the Drug Enforcement Agency,
key player in the hugely expensive, extensive, and largely unsuccessful war
against drugs. It would lose more than 500 agents, when it never had enough
manpower to do its job. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Doubtless, similar horror stories can be produced by other of the agencies
and departments that would be sacrificed to save money -- to pay for the tax
cuts. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 One problem is that the proposed savings never quite add up to the
estimated lost revenue. Moreover, most of the services that would be lost are
those which have received most support from the very people who are supposed
to enjoy the tax cuts. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Furthermore, those services which would be stripped of federal funding and
tossed to the local governments would result in hefty state and local tax
increases. It is a case of the Feds trying to make themselves look good at the
expense of state and local governments. But this is a game which most people
now understand, and bitterly resent, and -- in demanding an end to unfunded
mandates -- want to stop. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Hear that, children? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 In the adult (real) world, there is no justification other than pure
politics for a tax cut. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 On the contrary, a tax increase is needed, if only to help reduce the debt
accrued in the previous decade. If you remember the polls of public opinion
when a universal health care system seemed possible, most folks were willing
to pay higher taxes for a plan that met their needs. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 The likelihood is that most people, other than those hungry for a windfall
regardless of who pays for it, don't particularly want a tax cut. Except for
those at the top of the income scale, the actual dollar return of any proposed
tax cut would be negligible. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Oh, the proposal for a tax deduction for the cost of higher education is
attractive to most parents. But there is no end to the variety of goodies that
can be concocted. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Instead, most folks, it seems, want assurance that their taxes 1) are
really needed; 2) serve only qualified (deserving) people; 3) are being
wisely, even frugally, spent; and, above all 4) that there is no waste. They
want each dollar to produce a full dollar's work. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 However, once children start playing the tax-cut game, there is no end
until the treasury is empty, the credit exhausted, and the bill collector is
knocking at the door. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Then, oh then, we don't feel so good. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Will we never grow up? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
 Tom Bigler is a professor of communications at Wilkes University and a
Times Leader columnist. His column appears on Wednesdays and Sundays. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Playing Around With Tax Cuts Is Hazardous To Taxpayers' Health 
Oh Boy, The Children Have Found The Cookie Jar, And They're Beginning To Push 
And Shove, To Say Nasty Things To Each Other, Each Trying To Corner The 
Biggest Share, Each Trying To Take Away What Another Has Claimed. There'll Be 
No Rest Until The Jar Is Empty And The Cookies Eaten.