All Things Reconsidered
June 1, 2003
by Alexander Washburn

Drinks for All My Friends

That's the classic line delivered by Mickey Rourke while doing his best Charles Bukowski in the movie Barfly. Rourke’s character had just come into some money and what a better way to show his appreciation than to buy the other barflies a round of cocktails. President Bush and the Republican Congress (along with a few weenie Democrats) offered up to their friends more than just a few scotch and waters, as the President signed into law his $350 billion dollar tax cut. What makes this and other Bush tax cut bills disturbing is who it leaves out, and when you begin realize who these bills fail to help, you can clearly see who the President is really looking at for and who is playing lip service to.

At Thursday’s press conference the President was far from short on bold proclamations. "With my signature...we will deliver substantial tax relief to 136 million Americans," and far from truthful with the facts: "We are helping workers who need more take home pay. We're helping seniors who rely on dividends. We're helping small business owners to grow and to create more jobs. We're helping families with children who will receive immediate relief." By immediate relief, the President means a $400 check he directed the Treasury Department to send to families by July. But with everything Bush does, you must read the fine print. Sure, Bush delivers substantial tax relief but not for 136 million Americans as he claims but for the generous few that stand perched upon the highest tax brackets.

When poised with the possibility of assisting millions of children in low-income working families the White House opted to abandoned them because it meant making a slight scale-back in the capital gains/dividends provisions – which are direct provisions aimed at helping the very rich stay very rich. The White House was also willing to pony up $90 billion in tax cuts to the approximately 200,000 households with incomes over $1 million dollars. What kind of person would rather spend $90 billion to help 200,000 rich people when they could have saved money and spent $3.5 billion to assist 11.9 million children in low-income families working families that would have benefited from the low-income child tax credit?

The White House had another chance to extend some of this "substantial tax relief" to low-income working families by closing corporate tax shelters but once again sided with big business over small children. The Washington Post reported that the Senate bill included provisions to crack down on abusive corporate tax shelters to combat some of the accounting tricks like the ones used by Enron's Ken “Kenny-Boy” Lay, who happens to be President Bush's close friend and chief fundraiser. The Senate version also aimed to prevent U.S. companies from moving their headquarters to post office boxes in offshore tax havens such as Bermuda, a practice more anti-American than anything that came out of the Dixie Chicks mouth. Enacting the crackdowns would have saved $25 billion – more than enough to pay for the child credit provision estimated to cost $3.5 billion. Yet, the White House insisted that any attempts to right corporate greed wrongs be dropped from the final bill. Guess the sentiment over at the White House is that corporations like Enron that ruined the lives and retirement savings for thousands of Americans and robbed its employees and lied to stockholders don't need to be punished. But children born into poor families with parents struggling just to get by they deserve to get screwed. Why? Simple. No seven-year old African-American kid with asthma has ever contributed to Bush’s campaign.

Don’t Call it a Comeback

Of course, it's hard to believe any of this misguided tax cutting would've been possible if the President were not riding high after our "victory" in Iraq. Remember the War against Iraq? It came and went quicker than Watching Ellie. However, as suicide bombers rear their ugly heads again and sporadic violence in "liberated" Iraq occurs daily, the White House it seems has patted itself on the back too early. Even though the President tells us that Al Qaeda is being hunted down, with their communications disrupted and their millions of dollars frozen in bank accounts across the globe, they still seems to operate at will. Either the terrorist organization has devised a complex system of winks and nods that extend across geographic lines or the U.S. is not entirely truthful about the success of the War on Terror. This is not the time for the White House to be less than truthful about international relations. When the terror threat goes back to its highest level what exactly are we doing right in this war. We still have no specific information on threats just vague excuses to sound important. You'd think that after two years of fighting this war we'd be able to gather specific information by now – but we're still woefully incapable of producing real intelligence.

Last week, this space pined that a key swing issue for a Democrat to pounce on is a complete reform of our nation's intelligence agencies. With every passing day a weapon of mass destruction is not found, the call becomes louder and louder. The New York Times further this point writing: "The failure so far to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the prime justification for an immediate invasion, or distinctive links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda has raised serious questions about the quality of American intelligence and even dark hints that the data may have been manipulated to support pre-emptive war." Not one ounce of the deadly toxins that Bush claimed Iraq was in possession have been uncovered. This is beyond failure. Hell, the U.S. military is not even looking for weapons of mass destruction anymore, opting to become content with analyzing documents found in fallen Iraqi bunkers. Didn't Bush go on and on about the U.S. resolve to finish the job in Iraq? Guess that meant only when people were paying attention and now that Halliburton has $7 billion in new business in Iraq the U.S.'s work in Iraq is officially done.

It seems that photo opportunities are not the only thing this White House feels needs the Jerry Bruckheimer treatment. New reports from the BBC have surfaced that contradict what the Pentagon said about the condition and rescue of POW Jessica Lynch. It seems that fallen New York Times scribe Jayson Blair wasn’t the only one making up Lynch stories. It has been reported that contrary to Pentagon claims; Lynch was not shot, nor stabbed, nor was she tortured in captivity. As for the dramatic firefight and rescue, it seems that was a little overblown for the camera as well. Remember, the Lynch rescue came at a vital moment in the war when public opinion was shifting due to all the reports of captured and killed U.S. soldiers. The fact the Pentagon wasn't quick to give out the real truth (which is nothing to be ashamed of) will only come back to haunt this White House. We're in a world of answers and this administration from Jump Street has never really been about the straight dope whether on taxes or war. It's a proven fact that Americans don't want a President who doesn't tell them the truth. It's not like we're talking about fudging the truth on some meaningless blowjob after-hours in the Oval Office or other trivial pursuits orchestrated by high rollers like Bill Bennett. Surely, a gambling man like Bennett knows that when American lives are at risk, the stakes are high.

(Alexander Washburn is a volunteer staff writer for 2 Walls Webzine.)