creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Jim Hightower
Jim Hightower
23 May 2012
Snarling Banks

We're sick and tired of being bullied and stomped on by the Powers That Be in Washington, and by gollies, we'… Read More.

16 May 2012
Anheuser-Busch, Drunk on Greed

Big brewers like Anheuser-Busch frequently admonish us imbibers of their grain products to "drink responsibly.… Read More.

9 May 2012
Making Chemical Giants Happy at Our Expense

Thanks to the blessings of nature and good farmers, you and I can enjoy such scrumptious delights as fresh corn-on-the-cob,… Read More.

Helping the Neediest Among Us

Share Comment

To be fair to lawmakers, it's not easy making the tough spending choices in these dire times of rising public need and inadequate tax revenues. Legislators in my state of Texas, for example, are trying to make $27 billion in cuts to balance an already miserly budget.

So, assume you're a member of the Texas house. What needy constituency would you try to spare from the budget ax: school kids, poor people, old folks in nursing homes ... or yacht buyers?

Yes, yachts. Not you run-of-the-mill yachts, but big ones — those costing more than $250,000. You might not be surprised to learn that the Republicans, who have a supermajority in the House, went with yacht buyers.

Some days when you read the news, you don't know whether to go crazy, go bowling or go very deep into the woods and weep — and this was one of those days.

Rep. John Davis, a Houston Republican, passed his bill in committee to give a sales tax break to the purchasers of quarter-million-dollar-and-up yachts. I should note that this tax break is available to anyone, whether rich or poor, so in that sense it's fair. But is it really necessary?

Using both of his brain cells at once, Davis explains that it is. You see, he says that Florida already provides such a tax giveaway to the yachting crowd, so our state must match it, lest Texans go there to make their boat purchases.

Excuse me, but if you've got a few million bucks to splurge on a yacht, chances are you're not flying to Florida and hauling back just to avoid a sales tax. Still, Davis proudly says that he sees his bill as an "economic development" measure for our people. Imagine their gratitude.

OK, he's a goofball, but were there no adults in the room? Uh-uh. The committee chairman just shrugged his sorry shoulders and said the yacht break is "one of those things you have to do." Sheesh — 100,000 sperm, and he was the fastest?

The house budget will take away college aid for 60,000 students, eliminate nearly 100,000 teachers and other school employees, and shortchange health care for poor people by billions of dollars — but we've got your yacht covered! You see, it's simply a matter of getting your priorities straight.

For instruction in this political exercise, look to Washington, where the new priority is "shared sacrifice." Sounds nice. But it's really just code for gouging the middle class and the poor. Again.

Republican budget-whackers use the shared sacrifice phrase like a war cry as they slash Medicare, education, job training and every other public program they hate.

President Obama, too, has taken to uttering the phrase as he surrenders to the contrived wisdom in Washington that every American must give up even essential government benefits in order to balance the budget.

But guess who's not sharing. The corporate powers, which use their lobbyists, lawyers, campaign cash, tax havens and other tools to avoid giving up anything in the call for national sacrifice. And now, they can buy a tax-free yacht in Texas — no sacrifice needed there.

Hundreds of thousands of schoolteachers are being dumped and our schoolchildren stiffed in sacrifice to the Deficit Gods. But look — General Electric is a sacrifice-free corporation. With almost 1,000 tax lawyers and other specialists in its tax department, this infamous polluter and job-cutter has paid exactly zero in federal income taxes since 2006, despite raking in $26 billion in profits. Indeed, its army of sacrifice-avoiders produced a $4 billion tax refund for GE in those five years. Yes, we paid it to not pay taxes. Meanwhile, GE continues to be rewarded with billions of dollars a year in government contracts.

In a concise report titled "The Artful Dodgers," a watchdog group named Public Campaign uncovers the flagrant tax avoidance scams of a dozen hugely profitable corporations, including oil giants and bailed-out banks, as well as such outfits as FedEx and Carnival Cruise Lines.

When your local, state and national politicos mouth platitudes about sacrificing for the national good, tell 'em to start at the top, then get back to you. To download "The Artful Dodgers" report, go to publicampaign.org.

To find out more about Jim Hightower, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

2


Comments

10 Comments | Post Comment
Waaah, waah, they have more than me. Snivel. I want more. Sob, blubber, it's not fair. When does this guy, ever, get beyond the two-year-old stage?
Comment: #1
Posted by: David Henricks
Wed May 11, 2011 2:12 AM
Um, a multi-billion dollar corporation who pays less taxes than your average Dave? That's not whining, that's basic fairness. If they want "shared sacrifice" then they should be ready to actually SHARE the sacrifice, not dump it all on me, because I don't have an army of tax lawyers and accountants in my employ.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Sean
Wed May 11, 2011 4:42 AM
Dave,
are you for real? You really think that millions of American jobs that have been out-sourced is whining? You are either in the vaulted position of being in the dynasty club of the top 1% in this nation or, you're just a poser hoping to be one in some distant future. For people like you, it's better to flush the entire country down the drain rather than tax the
corporations and the fat cats at the top!
Comment: #3
Posted by: Allene Swienckowski
Wed May 11, 2011 4:22 PM
Jim,
David has been so kind as to share with us how the GOP gets elected. Given their push to disenfranchise poor, young, and minority voters across the country, it is time to push back. Either remove them, as voters are about to do in Wisconsin, or least wake them up with the idea that, if they wish to keep their jobs, they owe allegiance to more than just their corporate masters. I understand David's difficulty in responding to your column. Apparently, lack of any rational counter argument leaves him reduced to playground repartee. Keep up the good work.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Mark
Thu May 12, 2011 9:18 AM
Re: Sean Forcing "shared sacrifice" is not the way to go. From each according to his ability to each according to his need is a Marxist philosophy.
Comment: #5
Posted by: David Henricks
Fri May 13, 2011 8:27 AM
Re: Allene Swienckowski If, all of the money was taken from "the rich" and applied to the deficit, there would, still, be a deficit and no more rich people. Where do you proposed to get tax money, then. Business 101 is, certainly not, your forte.
Comment: #6
Posted by: David Henricks
Fri May 13, 2011 8:29 AM
Re: Mark You can have capitalism or socialism, not both. Railing against "the rich" is playground.
Comment: #7
Posted by: David Henricks
Fri May 13, 2011 8:31 AM
David,
Exempting the rich from many taxes is not capitalism. It is theft by government capture. When Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of his income in taxes than does his secretary, something is seriously amiss. (source: Warren Buffet) It is not whining to point that out. It is patriotism.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Mark
Fri May 13, 2011 9:27 PM
Re: Mark I don't know what the phrase "theft by government capture" means. Warren Buffett's choice does not mandate that all other "rich" people must do the same. Patriotism is preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States. "Rich people", those making more than $250,000, pay 63% of the income taxes. That's a lot of money. Warrenn Buffett's 17.7% of billions of dollars is much more money than his secretary will ever make in her lifetime, as a secretary. Ideaology about "wealth distribution" is not Constitutional. Misuse of "percentages" to portray how much each individual "rich person" pays in taxes leads to wealth envy and is perpetuated by whiners.
Comment: #9
Posted by: David Henricks
Sat May 14, 2011 8:40 AM
David,
Is your idea of a fair tax system that we divide should divide up the tax liability on a per-capita basis and call it good? Why don't we do sales tax this way? The unfortunate purchaser of a Lamborghini is stuck having to pay much more in sales tax than is the buyer of a Ford Focus. Why, the tax on the Lamborghini is likely to be more than the focus buyer will spend on cars in their whole life! What a terrible burden on the poor Lamborghini driver! The truth is that Warren Buffett pays 17.7% of his income in income taxes while his secretary pays about 30%. The difference is that the government does not write tax code for the benefit of the average tax payer. If Warren doubles his income, should his rate be cut in half because he is already paying a pile of money to the government? When a CEO flies a Guflstream jet to Oregon to play golf and that is considered a tax deductible expense for the corporation and the use of that jet for a personal golf game is not considered taxable income to the executive, something is seriously amiss. When control of the tax process is controlled by the rich for their own benefit, that places a greater percentage of the tax burden on the middle class. Theft does not seem too extreme a word.
Comment: #10
Posted by: Mark
Sun May 15, 2011 12:13 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Jim Hightower
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

20 May 2009 You Can Always Bank on the Greed of Wall Street Bankers

23 Sep 2009 "Local" Goes Loco

3 Sep 2008 Professor Bush's Economic Nostrum