Yikes! The business-conservative Chicago Tribune, in an
editorial this morning, called for increases in taxes, specifically the gas tax.
It's part of a very strong editorial on the problems with the federal budget:
The thing to realize is that the Trib is hard-core Republican. They've been that way for a long long time. The editorial board almost
never criticizes the President. Think of them as a canary in the mine for the opinions of business people.
The president has ruled out tax hikes to pay for this huge obligation. He instead vows to cut spending elsewhere to help foot the clean-up bill. But it's hard to take that promise seriously. During his time in office, this president has tolerated a 33 percent increase in federal outlays, a record unmatched since Lyndon Johnson. Bush has yet to veto a spending bill.
Bush is looking more and more like the reincarnation of LBJ. The list of parallels is frightening, actually. But the important thing is that the opening of the editorial is directly blaming the President for not dealing seriously with the large problem.
Nearly half of Americans surveyed in a recent Gallup poll--45 percent--say they expect Americans to make "major sacrifices" to pay for hurricane damage. Add in those expecting to make "minor" sacrifices and the number jumps to 93 percent. Cutting spending for Iraq would be their first choice on how to pay the government's bills, but their second choice is a tax increase. Americans understand that emergencies such as Katrina are expensive and the money has to come from somewhere. They say they're ready to pay more and are looking for leadership.
Trib: "Americans think taxes aren't all that bad". I'm going to book a skiing holiday in Hades. Now, if we can just get the WSJ ed board to say the same thing, pigs will take wing.
Here's the key section, including the bit that had me running to the computer to type this up:
Beyond that, the government could take two actions that would reflect Americans' willingness--at least their stated willingness--to sacrifice and would signal that every benefit has its costs:
- First, cut spending now. Delay (better yet, repeal) the Medicare drug benefit. Slash the energy and highway bills with an ax, not a scalpel. The highway bill alone contains $24 billion in pet projects. They could all be delayed--including Illinois' $1.3 billion in goodies--and the country would survive.
- Second, the president and Congress should raise the federal tax on gasoline. This idea is unpopular, but it would substantively and immediately alter behavior in a way that would have lasting economic and national security benefits. It would raise money and reduce American consumption of, and thus dependence on, foreign oil. It would directly link consumer choice to the cost of that choice, and it would be faster and more effective at curbing demand for gas than the chief alternative: raising federal mileage standards for new vehicles. It could be phased in over time and its impact softened with refundable tax credits for low-income Americans.
Read that last paragraph again, and remind yourself that this is coming from the editorial board of a conservative newspaper.
-dms