Truth, Accountability Just Too Taxing

Maybe it’s the advancing years, or cabin fever, or the fluoride in my toothpaste, but politics has me talking to myself more and more.

Here are some of my frequently asked questions.

Are big companies good role models?

I was wondering the same thing after reading Kaiser Aluminum’s response to the Department of Ecology’s increasing frustration with the company’s failure to rein in pollution violations.

Kaiser “takes its environmental responsibilities very seriously,” said Bud Leber, a company official. He goes on to say that Kaiser has operated during the labor dispute in “substantial compliance.”

I hope my son doesn’t follow this example:

Me: “Have you finished cleaning your room?”

Son: “I take my chores very seriously.”

Me: “Is the Mountain Dew spill cleaned up?”

Son: “I’m in substantial compliance.”

Are government regulators good role models?

I was wondering the same thing after reading the Department of Ecology’s reaction to a judge’s finding in Stubblegate. Last year, Save Our Summers sued the agency after it discovered that an embarrassing document wasn’t among the materials released to the clean-air group as part of a public records request.

The “smoking gun,” as the judge called it, was a memo from the Wheat Growers Association outlining a scheme in which the growers would pretend to be upset with Ecology’s guidelines on stubble burning. The same document was also withheld from The Spokesman-Review.

The judge ordered Ecology to pay nearly $17,000 to cover SOS’ court costs. Ecology declared victory, saying the ruling proved it did nothing wrong.

Is there a dime’s worth of difference between a Big Government Liberal and a Small Government Conservative?

Yes, but adjusted for inflation, it’s down to a nickel. According to a USA Today editorial, out of 535 congressional members, two have voting records in the past year that would have reduced government spending. They are both Republicans: Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Missing in action are the following who claim to be miserly with tax dollars: Slade Gorton, Helen Chenoweth-Hage, George Nethercutt, Larry Craig and Mike Crapo.

Over the past three years, the Republican-controlled Congress has increased President Clinton’s spending requests by $27.7 billion.

Wow! Government spending is out of control, isn’t it?

That’s what we keep hearing, but consider this: As a percentage of the gross national product, spending has dropped under Clinton.

So, is the era of grousing about big government over?

No, but the complainers are highly selective. In 1966, federal spending was 17.8 percent of GDP. In 1983, it was 23.1 percent. In 2001, it is projected to be 18.3 percent, the lowest level since 1966.

But isn’t that a function of the economy humming along better under LBJ and Clinton?

This is an unproductive question. You’re just going to make people angry if you point out that the economy didn’t do as well under Reagan.

So, if spending isn’t out of control, why are we being taxed at record levels?

We aren’t. Conservatives tell us that as a percentage of national output (GDP), tax collection is through the roof. They include capital gains tax dollars, which are pouring into the Treasury because of our raging bull of a stock market. Problem is, capital gains are derived from stock market and real estate transactions, which are not included in the GDP. If you remove capital gains taxes from the formula, taxes are not at a record high, especially for households who get most of their income from paychecks.

Let me guess. You’re not for a tax cut, are you?

Nope. Proposed cuts are based on projected surpluses, not current surpluses. It would be like looking at your salary and saying, “I got a 3 percent raise this year. If I continue to get that kind of raise, I will have X amount of dollars 10 years from now. Therefore, I’m going to buy a snazzy SUV tomorrow rather than pay off my credit cards and save money for the kids’ education.”

That sounds like a conservative argument.

Used to be.

But won’t a tax cut grow the economy?

Please rephrase.

But won’t a tax cut expand the economy?

That’s better. According to economists, four out of five dollars returned in a tax cut will be spent. So, yes, it could accelerate things, but we’re already pushing the speed limit. If Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is forced to pull us over, that will mean higher interest rates.

Every time the economy has grown too quickly, the Fed has raised interest rates to stave off inflation. Higher interest rates would gobble up whatever money you got back from a tax cut.

Sorry to interrupt your muttering, Crooks, but you’ve missed your deadline. Is that column about done?

I’m in substantial compliance.