 |
|||||
|
Damned lies
by John A. Jackson
Turn the clock back to last winter when President Bush was selling his tax cut. Certain assurances were given. In particular, the public was told (a) that the Social Security surplus would not be cut into, (b) that general fund deficits would not return, and that (c) money would remain available for such popular new programs as increased aid to education and prescription drug benefits for the elderly.
The tax cut was needed, the President said, to mitigate the recession he argued we were already in. But despite the prospect of recession, only the most conservative growth forecasts had been used and the overall surplus was still safe.
Cutting tax rates for the rich might even increase tax income, the administration said, as new investment raised the growth rate.
The President got his tax cut. Recession came.
Now we are told that next year, despite using all the Social Security surplus to pay current, non-Social Security bills, the federal budget will be back in the red.
In fact, annual deficits will continue for at least several years. Now another big tax cut is being sought -- to stimulate the economy. This time the chief beneficiaries would be big corporations, which somehow missed out when the previous largesse was distributed.
Aid to education? Drugs for the elderly?
"Don't be silly," we are told. "There's a war on."
What may we conclude?
That the tax cut was the important thing earlier this year, and that reasons were found for it whatever reality said. That, as long as its friends can be paid off, the administration is sublimely unconcerned about fiscal responsibility. And that Social Security is not safe in Republican hands.
Should we be shocked by these conclusions? Only if we shock easily.
Better, we should not vote for Republicans -- at least until the budget is back in balance and the Social Security surpluses are being used to pay down the national debt.
If they cannot deal honestly with us, we should not trust them with power.
On an unrelated subject, how the world has changed since last March. Back then, the Taliban were operating a regime whose treatment of women, among others, was not only repressive but absurd.
Fear and hatred of women compounded with psychotic religiosity to make life simply unbearable. If you would like the heart-wrenching details, contact the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (rawa.org).
How a faction as vile as the Taliban ever took power -- well, let's not go into that.
They deserved the world's contempt, and by and large they got it.
But not everywhere. In particular, not at the White House.
Last March, George Bush gave the Taliban $43 million as a reward for helping in the war against drugs.
The Taliban's policy toward women was not a secret last March. Far from it. They were never ashamed of their monstrosities.
Nor, in fact, were they all that fervent about cutting the production of opium poppies. According to RAWA, whose credibility is excellent, Taliban district leaders simply took the opium profits for themselves.
As with Panama's Manuel Noriega, what the U.S. mistook for a fight against drugs was simply the elimination of competitors.
No matter. The way of the world is to love money, even among radical Islamists. Or so it seems.
What is troubling now is to hear such fine people as the First Lady paint our war on the Taliban as a war for women's human rights.
The Bush Administration showed how it valued women's rights with the $43 million gift in March. If we help extirpate the Taliban, it is for our own interests and not for the sake of humanity.
RAWA is particularly eloquent about our allies the Northern Alliance's treatment of women. They reckon the alliance about on par with the Taliban. One hopes, for the innocent women's sake, that they will be proved wrong.
John A. Jackson may be reached at TomShadwell@cs.com. ER