We can either choose to pay now, or we will have to pay later -- preventing social ills is much cheaper in the long run. From a purely economic standpoint, many economists agree that a return to deficits is not a problem -- running a surplus would actually be more of problem -- and that this economic climate prescribes more government spending, not less.

We can either choose to pay now, or we will have to pay later -- preventing social ills is much cheaper in the long run. From a purely economic standpoint, many economists agree that a return to deficits is not a problem -- running a surplus would actually be more of problem -- and that this economic climate prescribes more government spending, not less.

With the return to budget deficits because of the combination of the added expenses of September 11th and the war, the effects of the economic recession, and the lost revenue due to the previously enacted tax cuts, Democratic leadership has focused primarily on the need to be fiscally responsible to avoid creating deeper deficits. There has been little direct criticism of the tax cut and the effect of its drain on resources, presumably because of the President's popularity and public support. Few are calling for postponing the tax cut, because the President has made it clear that, "not [sic] over my dead body" will it be rescinded or postponed. While the Democratic strategy may be to ultimately show that the tax cuts are not affordable, the current emphasis on fiscal responsibility seems misplaced. The President's budget, though cleverly crafted so as not to reveal it, would cause substantial cuts in spending for human needs programs, with domestic discretionary programs (excluding Homeland Security) facing cuts of 6.2% in 2003. (See Sen. Kent Conrad's (D-ND) "Review and Analysis of the President's FY 2003 Budget".)

Democrats have long championed the responsibility and role of an effective government to do what the market will not do. The country has priorities that are more important than tax cuts, and our failure to address them may create social deficits that are far graver than a few years of budget deficits. We can either choose to pay now, or we will have to pay later -- preventing social ills is much cheaper in the long run. From a purely economic standpoint, many economists agree that a return to deficits is not a problem -- running a surplus would actually be more of problem -- and that this economic climate prescribes more government spending, not less.

We think the emphasis ought to be on the trade-offs made necessary because of the cost of the tax cuts passed back in March, before our circumstances changed so dramatically. Why is our focus on the tax cuts? It would be easy to postpone tax cuts -- they are being phased in throughout the next ten years, so we could postpone cuts at any point as they are phased in. Additionally, we can pick and chose the provisions to postpone based on the knowledge that many of the tax cuts primarily benefit wealthier taxpayers and corporations (see Citizens for Tax Justice analysis). The tax cuts, unlike the war or the recession are fully in our control. They are a source of revenue that can easily be tapped. Finally, in spite of the country's many urgent obvious needs, tax cut proponents continue to push for even more cuts and to make those tax cuts already passed -- which would otherwise end in 2011 -- permanent, thereby further limiting the resources that are available for other purposes. (For one example of this effort, see related story, this issue.) We ought to be fighting just as hard to see that our resources are used where they are needed most -- for education and job training, for expanded unemployment benefits, for child care and early education for all children, for affordable housing, for health care -- the list goes on and on.

A few members of Congress are calling for a change so that we take care of "first things first." Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) was first to call for such a change when she introduced "The First Things First Act" on October 2, putting on hold the parts of the tax cut that benefit the wealthy until there is an adequate response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 and its impacts on workers; until the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds are solvent; until there is a Medicare prescription drug benefit; until school modernization and 100,000 new teachers are hired; and until there is a reduction in the number of people with worst-case housing needs. See Representative Schakowsky's press release for more information.

On January 16, 2002, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) gave a speech at the National Press Club. He specifically acknowledged the need to stand with the President on the war front, but urged us to also join together to meet the great domestic challenges we face and address "the urgent needs of our people in areas like jobs, education, health care, and equal rights." Kennedy proposed that whether it were right or wrong, the tax cut was enacted in a different time, and we should now agree to "postpone a portion of the future tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest taxpayers…until we are certain that we can afford a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens, make the needed investments in education and health care, protect Social Security and fully provide for the common defense." Under Kennedy's proposal, we could save $350 billion over the next ten years by avoiding future reductions in the tax rates paid by taxpayers in the highest income brackets and keeping the estate tax on estates over $4 million. Kennedy argues that since these won't take effect until 2004 and 2006, and, in the case of the estate tax, 2011, they will not hinder our recovery from the recession but will insure reductions in long-term interest rates now by instilling the public with more confidence in the budget situation over the next ten years. This tax cut freeze proposed by Kennedy would keep tax cuts for everyone but the richest according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice.

The latest Congressperson to talk explicitly about freezing parts of the tax cut is Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN), who proposed on February 12, 2002, to freeze the rates of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans where they are now, saving $121 billion over the next ten years. Wellstone also objects to repeal of the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax, a provision contained in the House Ways and Means Committee's first Economic Stimulus Package bill. He would invest the savings in schools and kids, especially to see that the Individuals with Disabilities Act is fully funded so that all children with disabilities can get special education.

Senators Kennedy and Wellstone have not yet introduced legislation.

If you agree that given a choice between tax cuts and meeting the needs of our people and communities, you would choose the latter, you should give your representatives your support for freezing or postponing some or all of the tax cuts. This need not be considered a choice that is disloyal or unpatriotic. Whatever your position on tax cuts before September 11 and the economic recession, times are different now and the trade-offs are starker. Are future tax cuts for the wealthy, which haven't even gone into effect yet, more of a priority than education, health care, housing, prescription drugs, and extending the solvency of Social Security?