Katrina could complicate Bush's ambitious foreign policy agenda

[struggle4progress]

BY WARREN P. STROBEL
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - <snip> An AP-Ipsos poll, taken before the full scale of the tragedy became evident, found that only 9 percent of Americans thought terrorism - Bush's defining issue for the last four years - was the nation's highest priority.

By contrast, 24 percent said energy and gas prices are the top worry, followed by 14 percent who named the economy and jobs. Only the situation in Iraq, chosen by 29 percent, rated higher in the survey of 1,000 adults taken Aug. 29-31. <snip>

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/politics/12562117.htm

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

1. His DOMESTIC agenda, too...

Don't forget that on September 30th, his "Tax Advisory Panel" is scheduled to turn in their "recommendations" for a "fair and simple tax overhaul."

One of Bush's FAVORITES since the 2004 election has been the "National Sales Tax," now being called "The Fair Tax."

Some info:

"You know, I'm not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it's the kind of interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously," Bush said, according to a Reuters report.

August 09, 2004, 8:47 a.m.

A National Sales Tax No Vote: The rates would be vastly higher than what you might suspect.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert created a flurry of excitement in Republican circles the other day when it was reported that he is proposing the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service in his new book. This would be accomplished by eliminating all existing federal taxes and replacing them with a national retail sales tax. There is no indication of what tax rate Speaker Hastert thinks would be necessary to replace all federal revenue. A current proposal by Rep. John Linder (R., Ga.) says that a 23 percent rate would be adequate. But such a low rate can only be sustained by making completely absurd assumptions about what would be taxed. Every serious economist who has ever looked at this question has concluded that a vastly higher rate would in fact be needed.

An unstated assumption is that the 23 percent rate proposed by Linder is comparable to existing state and local sales taxes, where the tax comes on top of the purchase price. Thus, a 5 percent sales tax on a $1 purchase comes to $1.05. But that’s not the way the Linder plan works. He deceptively calculates the rate as if the tax is part of the purchase price. He calls this the tax-inclusive rate. Calculating the rate the normal way people are accustomed to with state and local sales taxes would require a 30 percent tax rate, not 23 percent. When Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation scored the Linder proposal four years ago it estimated that it would actually require a tax-inclusive rate of 36 percent, not 23 percent, to equal current federal revenues. Calculating the rate in a normal, tax-exclusive manner would mean a 57 percent rate.

Economist Bill Gale of the Brookings Institution notes that supporters of the sales tax assume that there will be no tax evasion under their proposal and that the size of government will not grow, even though they would send a large annual check to every American in order to offset the regressivity of the tax. Making realistic assumptions, Gale estimates that the tax-inclusive rate, comparable to Linder’s proposed 23 percent rate, would actually have to be about 50 percent. A rate comparable to existing sales taxes would be close to 100 percent. And let us not forget that state and local sales taxes would come on top of the federal sales tax, pushing the total rate even higher. Obviously, the federal government is not going to impose tax rates this high, nor would anyone pay them if it did. There would be a massive tax revolt.