Let’s get real about taxes

Some of us prefer to live in a dream world insulated from unpleasant realities, especially those involving taxes. As George H. W. Bush did in 1988, today’s Republicans not only promise no new taxes, they even propose to lower existing ones. But how can they possibly do that in view of the inescapable challenges that face us?

Cut welfare and foreign aid, the standard conservative solution to all Federal budget problems? These categories account for only nine and one percent respectively of our spending, less than the interest we pay on the Federal debt.

A recent survey of our infrastructure by the American Society of Civil Engineers reported critical deficiencies that require immediate attention. We graded C on ports, harbors and Bridges and D on energy, highways, school structures, aviation facilities, wastewater treatment, levees, hazardous waste disposal, drinking water and dams. D+ is unsatisfactory. To bring these facilities up to minimum standards by 2020 will require an estimated $3.6 trillion outlay. And the Republicans promise lower taxes?

Federal expenditures on infrastructure were reduced almost by half when Reagan arbitrarily cut them in the 1980s. He intentionally created a gaping hole for state and local governments to fill, but knowing their budgets were tighter and their voters stingier. State and local infrastructure spending is now at a 30-year low in 45 of 50 states. How much longer can we ignore this?

Americans have an aversion to raising fuel taxes, convinced it will devastate the economy. But Europe’s high gas levies haven’t slowed its prosperity. Europeans higher fuel taxes force reduced consump- tion through smaller cars, public transportation, bicycles and (Heaven forbid!) walking. Consequently, Europe had no twoblock long lines at the gas pumps during the 1973 Middle East oil embargoes.

American public education, once a model for the world (and still the world’s most expensive), ranks 17th out of 30 in math scores, 21st in science and 17th in reading. Only U. S. graduate schools are world-class anymore. How can we expect to compete in a global economy with results like these?

In President Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell address he warned of the inherent dangers from the military-industrial complex, a consortium of defense industry executives and high-ranking military staff officers who control Defense Department purchasing. This cushy arrangement has resulted in defense spending higher than the next eight nations combined and almost four times greater than our nearest rival, China. Is that overkill, or what? Savings realized from weaning this thirsty calf could repair a lot of roads, dams and bridges and educate a lot of kids without appreciably endangering the quality of our national defense.

After the Soviet Union’s collapse do we still need over 60,000 U. S. troops on 32 bases in Germany, NATO’s wealthiest and most powerful nation? And isn’t over 500 military bases around the world, exclusive of Marine embassy detachments, a bit excessive? And what ever happened to the “peace dividend” we were promised after the USSR’s demise? We need some answers before November.

George B. Reed Jr., who lives in Rossville, can be reached by email at reed1600@bellsouth.net.