Tax Cut: a Walk on the Sunny Side of the Street

I would like to second the contents of Ronald Brownstein’s column, “New Era Means Trimming Tax Cut” (Jan. 14), in which he tells us why the Bush administration’s $1.35-trillion tax cut should be modified. In crafting this tax cut, members of the Bush administration projected only the most enthusiastic, improbable scenario imaginable. They were told that bad things happen that could throw their projections into a turmoil and deny necessary funds to Social Security, national defense and security and the health and welfare of the populace. They ignored this advice, and sure enough, bad things did happen. The sin of the Bush administration, and President Bush himself, was that they did not make allowance for negative events. Then when those events did happen, Bush cried, “Don’t blame me.”

Robert L. Fox

Los Angeles

*

Brownstein opines that a recession means that the tax cut must be trimmed back. If this sentiment weren’t being echoed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and given tacit acceptance by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), one might wonder if Brownstein were the alter ego of Herbert Hoover. Let’s forget about the economic stimulus of a tax cut; raise taxes and contract the economy. That was the Hoover strategy, and while it did wonders for fiscal rectitude, it gored the working man.

It has been 70 years since Hoover and the advent of homeless encampments then referred to as Hoovervilles. Perhaps if Clinton and Brownstein are successful in their quest and unemployment goes off the charts, we could name the resulting homeless encampments Daschle-villes. Or even Hillary-villes.

James A. Gorton

Pasadena

*

I finally figured out the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats tax and spend the money they get. Republicans give tax rebates and then spend the money they don’t get.

Stan Seavey

Oxnard