David Drucker Drucker is a history student in
his final quarter at UCLA. E-mail him at [email protected].
Click Here for more articles by David Drucker
Maybe in our current climate of constantly escalating political
rhetoric, I shouldn’t be surprised, but I just don’t
get the furor over George W. Bush’s modest federal tax cut
proposal.
Contrary to the points of contention thrown around nightly by
your favorite cable news squawkers ““ if you have any ““
the real story behind the tax-cut debate is not whether a tax
reduction of $1.6 trillion (over 10 years) should be in the
offing.
The naked donkey in the room, rather, is the Democratic
Party’s love affair with progressive-style taxation.
And if the political atmosphere on campus and the Daily
Bruin’s most recent presidential election poll are any
indication, count yourselves among the enamored (“UCLA
students favor Al Gore,” News, Nov. 8, 2000).
Which is not to say that the issue doesn’t deserve debate.
Good people, even reasonable people can differ on the timing and
size of the cut. Free-marketeers on the right and left of the
political spectrum can argue the wisdom of curtailing, or never
creating, various government programs. Economists have valid
concerns regarding the viability of banking on a budget surplus
that has yet to materialize but is nonetheless projected by the
Congressional Budget Office to net $5.6 trillion between 2002 and
2011.
In fact, those are exactly the kinds of arguments that filled
U.S. Senate chambers last week. Split 50-50 between Democrats and
Republicans, senators practiced the old “hue and cry”
for and against tax cuts. As expected, majority leader Trent Lott,
R-Miss., argued in the affirmative ““ Vice President Dick
Cheney’s tie-breaking vote gave the GOP the edge ““
while minority leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., led the charge
against.
In the end, however (and not surprisingly, due to the
possibility of a recession that The Anderson School’s annual
forecast calls 98 percent certain by next year), there was
bipartisan agreement on a budgetary blueprint. If formally agreed
to and voted into law by both houses of Congress, it will guarantee
Americans a tax cut of $1.285 trillion.
Why the brouhaha to begin with? Washington projects that it will
collect more of our money than it needs to meet its obligations
between 2002 and 2011. Consequently, the president, the GOP-led
House of Representatives and even 15 moderate Senate Democrats
(California’s Dianne Feinstein included) have agreed to
return the excess back to the people who earned the money in the
first place: us, our parents and anybody else you know with a
job.
But again, no surprises here. The federal foreplay one observes
inside the Beltway is about as predictable and has been around
about as long as, well, foreplay.
The rest of the story is the political left’s
justification and support of a tax system that penalizes hard work
and demonizes those who have done well, aka “the richest one
percent.”
And since at UCLA maybe three students voted Republican back in
November (and I think I’m being generous), that means a
sizeable portion of the student body at one of the nation’s
largest universities has swallowed a mantra that calls for them to
voluntarily relinquish one-third to one-half of their earned income
to federal coffers every year on April 15th once they hit the job
market.
We’re not talking the extreme left here, folks.
We’re talking about students who come from, and look forward
to returning to, a life among the suburban middle to upper middle
class. And they all seem to be thrilled with the idea of paying a
percentage of their personal income to the government that
increases as their income level goes up.
All that President Bush and those who agree with him have done
is argue that no American should be required to write a check for
more than one-third of his or her annual income to the Internal
Revenue Service. And they are working to change the federal tax
code accordingly.
Call me kooky, but what’s wrong with that?
What’s wrong with a philosophy that says it’s not
right to penalize a working professional who has invested time and
money in an undergrad, graduate or post-graduate degree and is now
enjoying the fruits of his or her investment? What’s wrong
with a worldview that recognizes the risks and 16-hour days
incurred by the average American small business owner who, after
five years of forgoing a salary, is finally able to make a
living?
Apparently something is, because of all the president’s
campaign promises made prior to the election, none have achieved
the ire of the dreaded tax cut.
“How can a man who earns $5 million a year survive on
four? He’d have to live with only a medium-sized pool!”
Daily Bruin columnist Doug Lief said mockingly last May
(“Conservatives ignore plight of minorities, poor,”
Viewpoint, May 15, 2000). The Republican Party “wants to
spread … prosperity only to those who don’t need the
help,” chimed in Bruin Democrat President Melanie Ho back in
September (“Read my lips … ,” Viewpoint, Sept. 25,
2000).
The motives behind the political left’s vehement rejection
of an across-the-board tax cut that benefits all taxpayers is
rooted in noble concerns, to be sure. Despite the assurances I am
given by my friends on the far right, the Democratic Party and
their base of supporters are not a bunch of socialists. I go to
school here too, and if I had a nickel for everyone I know who
plans to become a lawyer and spend the winter skiing in Tahoe, I
could’ve left school early for a career as a slot-machine
gambler.
What I think we’re dealing with, in a word, is
“fairness” ““ or the lack thereof.
Since the Civil Rights Movement began opening the doors of
opportunity for all Americans regardless of their background, one
thing has become increasingly clear: life isn’t fair.
Consequently, though all men are created equal, not all men live
equally.
This is a thorn that continues to dig itself into the side of
those on the left. It is the chief so-called problem left-leaning
academics ““ which at UCLA, again, is probably all but about
three ““ spend their time trying to expose and also sometimes
remedy.
And while these concerns are honorable, I wonder if the average
student comprehends what progressive taxation really means.
That is why, in the interest of fairness, and an unabashed
desire for some intellectual honesty, I am calling on UCLA’s
academic and student leadership to institute a “Grade
Tax” on all levels of the student body.
Because if it’s unfair that some people earn more money
than others, thus affording them a higher standard of living, it
stands to reason that it’s also unfair for some UCLA students
to get higher grades than others.
The logic is clear: not only do undergraduate grades have a
direct effect on admission to graduate schools, but many
prospective employers now request transcript copies as an
additional way of comparing job applicants. In light of this, there
is no doubt that grades can play a significant factor in the
standard of living you will enjoy after graduation.
According to progressive thinking, a student who earns an
“A” in a particular class should be taxed one grade.
This would drop his or her grade down to a “B,” but
lift a “C” student up to a “B.” Similar to
our federal system of taxation, anyone who earns, for example, a
“C-plus” would be taxed less, only a half a grade down
to a “C,” possibly lifting a “D-plus”
student up to a “C-minus”
The details still need to be hammered out, but the foundation of
the plan is solid. The better you do, the more you should pay
““ or in this case, have your grade dropped in favor of
someone else who may not have studied as hard as you or may or not
be as intelligent as you.
It’s only fair.