Bu-lat-lat (boo-lat-lat) verb: to search, probe, investigate, inquire; to unearth facts Issue No. 37 October 28 - November 3, 2001 Quezon City, Philippines |
Take a Guess: Who's Going to Pay for the Terror Economy? BY
ROBERT B. REICH
Back to Bulatlat.com Alternative Reader Index Not
since World War II have Americans felt so unified. We're fighting a war against
terrorism and we're fighting to get the economy moving again. And we're all in
this together. Except when it comes to paying the bill. The
cost of the war on terrorism since Sept. 11 is estimated to be $40 billion, just
for this year. That includes at least $20 billion for the military; $7 billion
for recovery and relief in New York and at the Pentagon; $3 billion to fight
bioterrorism; $2 billion for more security at dams, power plants and federal
buildings; and $600 million to secure our airports and aircraft. That's
a lot but still less than 1% of our annual national product. To get the economy
moving again, the federal government will have to part with a lot more. Ideally,
the government would put that added money into the hands of middle-and
lower-income people. Not only are they the most at risk of losing their jobs but
they're also much more likely to spend additional cash. High-income people
already spend all the money they want to. The House Ways and Means Committee has
proposed $100 billion in tax cuts over the next year to spur the economy.
Problem is, these cuts are mostly for the rich. All of the $54 billion in
accelerated tax cuts would go to the top 30% of taxpayers. Half would go to the
top 5%. Eighty percent of the benefits from the proposed capital gains tax cuts
would go to the richest 2% of households. So
who's going to pay? Middle-and lower-income Americans. Eighty percent of
Americans now pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. The House
Ways and Means bill doesn't cut payroll taxes, even temporarily. To the
contrary, it would increase the odds that payroll taxes would have to be hiked. Here's
why: With all the extra spending and tax cutting, the federal budget will go
into the red next year. That
itself is no cause for worry. A budget deficit is perfectly fine when the
economy is shrinking, as it almost certainly is now. Consumers and businesses
aren't spending enough to keep the economy running near full capacity, so the
federal government spends more and taxes less. Unfortunately,
the House's tax bill retains most of its cuts beyond next year, even after the
economy is likely to turn up again. That spells trouble because government is
going to need a lot more money starting in a decade, when the 79 million baby
boomers begin collecting Social Security. What
to do? One possibility would be to raise the Social Security retirement age.
It's already 67 for some people; it could even go to 70. But this wouldn't be
fair to lower-income people, many of whom will have spent 45 years in hard
physical work. Another possibility would be to slash Social Security payments.
But this wouldn't be fair to boomers who paid payroll taxes on the assumption
that they could count on Social Security. The
most likely solution would be to hike payroll taxes. Odds are that this is what
the president's Social Security commission will recommend. That way, the federal
budget would go back to a surplus, allowing the federal debt to drop. By the
time the boomers' Social Security comes due, the government could borrow the
money to pay them. The
payroll taxes paid by today's workers are more than sufficient to cover the cost
of today's Social Security because the boomers are still working. So where is
the extra going? To finance the war against terrorism and--if the House Ways and
Means Committee has its way--a big tax cut going mostly to the rich. Get
it? Income and capital gains tax cuts for the rich now, payroll tax hikes on
middle-and lower-income Americans to come. Americans
like to think we're all in this together. But if the tax bill now emerging in
the House becomes law, the richest of us will be excused.
Back to Bulatlat.com Alternative Reader Index We want to know what you think of this article.
|