Re: The impossibility of having a secure Homeland and tax cuts

[HereSince1628]

George Bush jr. is often seen as being more of a Reaganite than Ronald Reagan. An important component of Reaganomic' supply side thinking (that G. Bush senior considered Voodoo economics) is analysis of economic models such as the Laffer curve which suggests that the real optimum for taxation is ZERO.

Zero taxation may provide maximum incentives (profits) to producers but it presents ABSOLUTE problems. With zero revenue the government can make no contributions to productivity. While ignored by the business class and faceless corporations which seem to dominate the economic concerns of Republicans, it should be apparent to everyone that ZERO government is completely destructive to the American economy and its capacity for self-defense. While economic models frequently invoke the belief that government provides no contribution to productivity this is untrue, particularly during a period of war (i.e. NOW). Rather this exploitative system of belief attempts to shrug off the responsibilities of producers by denying the reality that government shields their investments against threats thereby indemnifying producers and marketers against real threats to their opportunities for continued business activity.

In general, American productivity is enhanced by various government services that assure the availability and quality of labor, facilitate exchange/trade and enable the movement of goods in and out of the country. For example, public health programs insuring safe and dependable sources of food and water, immunization, medical services, etc., and reduce productivity losses through illness absenteeism Public educational infrastructure, provided by localities and states, creates mechanisms that allow producers to have trained labor yet externalize the cost of training either to the consuming public or to the individual. Public transportation systems supported by local, state, and federal taxation and fee levies facilitate the most rapid and dependable infrastructure for the movement of goods. During a period of war (i.e. NOW) the government provides the exceptional service of securing an environment conducive to the continuation of positive productivity. That service requires payment for labor and equipment which must be acquired and maintained, even if the payment is deferred.

The pubic defense cannot be sustained by the elimination of taxation.
Despite the federal government's attempt to externalize the conflict with terrorism to foreign lands, the events of 911 show that American productivity is subject to attack. Most public officials agree that such attacks are inevitable. Consequently, the continued uninterrupted productivity of America depends upon the availability of revenues (reassignment or development of new revenue sources) to Civil Defense a.k.a. Homeland Security.

The demands for expenditures in Civil Defense are inconsistent with the reduction of tax revenue received by producers. In the first place, reduced taxation will only reduce the ability of Civil Defense agencies to secure the materials and services needed to protect both lives, private investment, and public infrastructure. In the second place the importance of redundancy and reserve in critical infrastructure and resources is antithetical to the requirements of maximum productive yield per dollar invested. Consequently, strategic back-up of critical services and materials cannot be expected to be freely supplied by producers. Rather the payment for this capacity must involve the responsible obligation of tax contributions from producers as well as consumers.

The continued application of tax cuts only reinforces the conclusion that Homeland Security is UNATTAINABLE(!) under Bush's Reaganesque economic policies emphasizing legalized profiteering.

The assessment of the soundness of American economic policy must involve in addition to private sector productivity the fair consideration of governmental contributions to productivity (health, education, shared defense) and provisions for rest and retirement of all American citizens as desirable values. The failure to include these outcomes results in the tortured devaluation of the benefits of taxation and leads to sinking living standards for American workers. The Bush administration's use of such morally and aesthetically depauperate models of economics yields to society results that are appropriate for 1884 but which must be rejected as a standard of living for a developed nation in 2004.

In vulgar words, and perhaps to reduce this to a meme...STOP the tax cuts!... Let the nation unite and move forward with the protection and facilitation of commerce and American life through mechanisms that insure fair and adequate assessments of shared financial obligations of all citizens and corporations.