October 8, 2003

Dear Steve-

It is an incorrect assumption to believe that the 50%, who do not pay Federal Income Taxes, according to your information, are approximately the 50% who oppose the recent tax cuts. I do not agree with your statement about the “…non-paying voters only voting for politicians who will continue to supply the protection of our armed forces.” First of all I know countless people who pay taxes, including myself, that are opposed to the recent tax cuts. They feel that these “cuts” won't really create jobs, that it is “bone thrown” to rich supporters, that it is unfair and skewed to the wealthy and that it is bad public policy. The graduated income tax is not socialistic re-distribution of revenue, but a “fair” way to allow society, our country to have those who are most successful economically, and quite often socially advantaged, to pay their “fair” share. They have earned their money, no doubt, but here in our country we are the lowest taxed people in the western world.

 Our society is expensive, and the loopholes that have allowed countless American companies to hide in foreign tax shelters have not helped everyone's tax burden. Note how the elimination of inheritance taxes will perpetuate oligarchic control of the few. This is still supposedly a democracy and to allow the a “super” class of rich to dominate the economy and the political system will lead to the destruction of the middle class and economic disaster. We still need a vibrant strong middle class to be the purchasers of Fortune 500 products. The super rich cannot do it alone! I am unalterably opposed to the elimination of the inheritance tax. I am unalterably opposed to the Bush policy of “let no millionaire fall behind.” I want to see a rollback on the recent rate cut for the top earners to pay for this current unending war and I want to see some sense out of this administration's last year in office.

 Also, so you remember, it is these so-called non-tax paying citizens that make up our Army and do most of the fighting and dying in faraway places. I have no qualms about the cost of anti-terrorism, no qualms about doing away with the Taliban and no qualms with toppling Sadaam Hussein. But I do have qualms about a poorly planned effort, the escape of Osama Bin Laden, and Sadaam Hussein, the miscalculation regarding the administration and costs of our new conquests, and an effort to justify a war with tainted information. I am extremely happy to see Sadaam and his Baathist brigands out of power. But were they really a threat, were their massive unconventional weaponry poised to strike us, were they aiding and arming Al Quaida, and were they a first class military power? I think not! The public was obviously lied to in an effort to “make the ends justify the means!” Clinton was excoriated for lying about “sex.” What else is new? Did Henry Hyde, Robert Livingston, Newt Gingrich, Nelson Rockefeller, and countless others lie about sex? You bet they all did! Bush has lied constantly about what he promised to do as President, and he has obviously lied in his national address regarding the power of Sadaam Hussein. One cannot have it both ways. Either his CIA, and his National Security Agency team are a bungling bunch of self-serving inept Inspector Gadgets, or the Bush White House is manipulating the facts. Which is it? I do not view the administration and future of this country as only a struggle between tax advocates and tax cutters. There are countless issues that cut across all philosophical and political boundaries. For sure, our society needs money! The supply-siders from the Reagan days proved that they can create prosperity for the upper class by running this country into trillions more of debt. Please no more of that!

Regards,

Richard J. Garfunkel