WASHINGTON, Dec. 4 (UPI) -- The UPI think tank wrap-up is a daily digest covering opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events and position statements released by various think tanks. This is the first of two wrap-ups for December 4.
The National Center for Policy Analysis
(The NCPA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research institute that seeks innovative private sector solutions to public policy problems.)
DALLAS -- Democrats don't get it when it comes to cutting taxes
By Bruce Bartlett
Democrats are trying to come to grips with the tax issue, but don't "get it." For example:
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich favors exempting the first $20,000 of wages from the Social Security payroll tax for two years -- to be paid for by raising estate taxes.
And former Clinton economist Gene Sperling favors more tax rebates financed by freezing the portions of last year's tax cut that have not taken effect -- a net tax increase because the rebate would be temporary while the tax freeze would be permanent.
George W. Bush and the Republicans are driving the economic agenda. It was not always so. In the name of fiscal responsibility, Republican presidents used to oppose efforts by congressional Republicans to cut taxes, and often pushed tax increases to close budget deficits caused by Democrat spending. This gave Republicans the reputation of being tax collectors for the welfare state.
But during the 1970s, inflation pushed taxpayers into higher tax brackets, and because of graduated tax rates, revenues rose about 50 percent faster than inflation.
Finally, the middle class figured out that all this new spending never reached them, while tax cuts cost them nothing; thus opposing tax cuts is the same thing as asking for a tax increase.
Today, Republicans have been cutting taxes for more than 20 years and have gained credibility with voters. By contrast, the last Democratic tax cut was in 1964. Democrats have fought every tax cut since, imposed tax increases whenever they had the opportunity, and their leaders view last year's tax cut as the root of all evil.
(Bruce Bartlett is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.)
The Reason Foundation
Rebellion against the drug czar
By Brian Doherty
LOS ANGELES -- Drug Czar John Walters wants us all to make the right decisions. Not just about what chemicals we choose to put in our bodies, but about how we choose to vote. He campaigned against Nevada's ballot initiative this November that would have legalized marijuana possession in that state.
It might seem a trifle unfair -- and possibly in violation of campaign finance law -- for someone with a $180 million ad budget and the full power of the federal government behind him to explicitly throw his weight around in a state election. The Marijuana Policy Project, known as the MPP, thinks so, and on Dec. 4 they intend to file an official complaint with the federal Office of Special Counsel, charging that Walters violated both the federal Hatch Act (which prohibits federal employees from indulging in certain campaigning activities) and Nevada campaign finance laws, since he didn't report his anti-initiative activities as campaign contributions.
MPP chief Robert Kampia is calling for Walters to be removed from office for his "illegal and dishonest activities."
This isn't the first attempt by the Office of National Drug Control Policy to extend its propagandizing beyond traditional public service ads. The Clinton-era ONDCP launched a program of paying off TV networks to include anti-drug messages in entertainment programs.
While it's undoubtedly true that campaign junkets by bureaucrats and very special episodes of TV shows aren't major decision-making factors for most Americans, the drug czar office's shameless attempts to use money they've stolen from us to tell us what to think and how to vote -- and what TV characters we should be pitying -- shows a lack of respect for democracy and culture that's galling, to say the least. While the thin props that hold up John Walters's sad little propaganda dream world are collapsing almost daily -- see the recent study from the RAND Drug Policy Research Center debunking the notion that marijuana is always the first step on the road to junkiedom -- it's unsurprising that he desperately inserts himself into every situation where an American might get to think for him- or herself about drugs and drug laws.
The drug czar's office has certainly violated a basic American notion of government -- that it should protect our lives and property, not propagandize us at election time. The MPP is declaring that the office is violating the law as well. If so, the full force of the law should weigh on Walters, just as he advocates it to weigh on users of a certain selection of herbs and chemicals.
(Brian Doherty is an associate editor of Reason magazine.)
