In probably the most enjoyable economics column of the year, Adam Lashinsky shares wittily (or half-wittedly?) that, well, he has no idea what should be done about the tax cuts: "Should the cuts be $726 billion or $550 billion or $350 billion? Beats me." Lashinsky earns brownie points by admitting that, "when it comes to bitterly contested theories about what's best for the economy, everything is negotiable." In other words, there is no wrong, there is no right, and he sleeps very well at night (thank you, Don Henley). There is only belief and disbelief, which can be infinitely more dangerous. Most importantly, though, Lashinsky masks his own opinions about the matters at hand so as to give his article an aura of objectivity, though his bias against a tax cut for the rich indicates that he is, at the very least, skeptical of such a sweeping tax cut plan.

Keeping in line with his indiscriminate and veiled opinions, Lashinsky also points out that the economy is in bad shape not because of anything any President, Congress, or Federal Reserve actions did, but because

...irrationally exuberant businesses bought far more stuff than they needed and then stopped buying stuff for three years... It seems that if businesses feel like they have an opportunity to grow again, aided by a lessened fear of war, they'll begin to think about buying stuff again. When they do that, the economy will grow.

This is important, because he makes sure to clear his idea that politics has nothing to do with the alleged failure of our economy in the last couple of years; September 11 aside, our stuttering economy has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with economics (a subject about which I would argue too many politicians know too little).

My idea for an appropriate tax cut is one that would reduce the tax burden for those who actually pay taxes while encouraging those with the biggest breaks to get our country back into the habit of donating to causes of our choice rather than of the government's choice. The average liberal (I oversimplify the "liberal" label to include those who generally oppose Bush's tax cut plan), with a general distrust for human nature, would rather see the government mandate a higher tax rate for the rich and a redistribution of the wealth to those who need it most. I only question the "need" of this wealth. The foundation of our economy was built to support an effort-driven society through which the money would be delivered to those who we collectively decided had earned it for the work we collective created for them. The more progressive our taxes become, the further from this dream of economic individualism we venture, and the closer to economic dystopia we find ourselves.

My idea of individualism, as opposed to neoliberal socialism, is that we as individuals know well enough how to run our own lives without a third party, such as the federal government, imperialistically deciding that it knows better how to handle our money (for instance) than we do. Certainly, if the government sticks its invisible hand into everything we do, even to the point that it does much of it for us, then we lose our ability to question the government's intrusion and even accept it as a part of life. Not that I distrust my government, but I would much prefer to trust individual people like me to do the right thing with their money simply because I want that option for myself when/if I ever find myself with enough money to be able to make those decisions. Let me reiterate: I do not distrust my government; I simply believe we should all trust ourselves.

Now that there is a good chance that we might be given that chance, if Bush's tax cut proposal is eventually passed, perhaps consideration of what tax cuts could actually mean should be in order. In a Washington Times column published on January 7, Richard Rahn commented that, "The Bush plan is trying to partially correct some of the objectively unfair aspects of the present tax code. The Republicans now have a chance to show they favor both tax fairness and economic growth." In my opinion, the unfairness stems from New Deal-era reforms that led to somewhat socialist policies bent on redistributing wealth by drastically emphasizing "progressive" tax rates. The Bush tax cut proposal, which would reduce the highest tax rates, seeks to correct the mistakes of our economically ignorant past and get our tax rates back on track a bit.

The arguments on one side of Bush's plan suggest that the short-term benefits are nonexistent or negative, while opposing arguments support Bush's plan for its long-term benefits. In response to criticisms in opposition of Bush's plan, I offer first a generalization: for just about every economic cause-effect relationship I can think of, the short-term effect is precisely opposite of its long-term effect. That is, a tax cut generating a short-term deficit (that would also generate, as a result of an increase in consumers' disposable income, billions of dollars of increased consumption expenditure) stands a very good chance of yielding long-term surpluses; indeed, the Congressional Budget Office, among others, predicts budget surpluses once again by 2011. Combine the long-term benefits for the aggregate economy with the short-term benefits of individuals with increased disposable income, and one would think we would have a happy economy!

This is hardly the entire picture when it comes to debating the legitimacy of Bush's tax cut plan. But when the leading argument against the plan is emotive rather than substantive (I continuously hear the same line about a "tax cut for the rich"), I find it difficult to credit the disbelievers with any legitimacy. For over two years now, I have read newspaper, magazine, and journal articles; government press releases and speeches; and the written opinions of people like me in various forums; and, even on the short end of the tax-cut-benefits stick, I have yet to find any compelling reason to believe that Bush's tax cut proposal is wrong.

Our Founding Fathers built this nation for individuals who shared an idealistic dream that we could support ourselves and our country without the overbearing intrusiveness of a central government that could not help but involve itself in our daily affairs. We had a dream once. What happened?