... Or do they?

The response to my column wondering why Americans apparently want no part of a tax cut brought an amazing revelation: Americans do want a tax cut.

Sure, I heard from the anti-tax-cut crowd about the utter irresponsibility of allowing citizens to spend their own money with no direction from the government. And I heard about the glories of debt reduction, although no one managed to explain how in the world Al Gore will keep his promise to cut the national debt after he spends the entire federal budget surplus -- and more -- on that litany of government programs he recited in his speech at last month's Democratic National Convention.

Most of the letters and e-mails from tax-cut opponents read like hot-off-the-presses propaganda from the Gore campaign, but some of the just plain folks who favor tax cuts have obviously spent some time pondering the pros and cons of tax reduction.

One reader placed blame for the public perception that tax cuts are bad squarely on the doorstep of "our Democratic president, W.J. Clinton" -- and on society's overdependence on government largess. "As a mother, attorney, and concerned, educated taxpayer, I recall that during my Political Science Class 101 at the University of Illinois in 1984, Professor Ira Carmen told my class of (bored) freshmen... democracies typically and historically last about 200 years, plus or minus a few. After that much time, the masses become complacent and well-versed in how to achieve that so-sought-after class... that of the entitled class. Democracy abhors royalty... however, humans seek it.

"Thus, we vote in `perks' to ourselves. Each group has their own wants and desires but rarely enough money to pay for it on their own. So, we vote `yes' to taxes when legislators seem to agree to give us our money back, plus some more, for those things we `need' (aka want). But the problem is, everyone wants in on the action so taxes must go up and up and up. Suddenly, the government is taking our money and deciding where it is reapportioned (a federally mandated Robin Hood)."

Another e-mailer offered a somewhat less philosophical view:

"Perhaps I can explain to you why many people cringe when they hear the words "tax cut." I think there are three major reasons why this is:

"1. Millions believe that the tax cuts of the `80s are what caused the deficits.

"2. Millions believe that when there is a tax cut proposal by a Republican, it only benefits the rich.

"3. Millions believe that a $1.2 trillion tax cut actually reduces federal revenues by $1.2 trillion.

"I attribute all of these beliefs to the following: Democrats who are dishonest with the American people; a liberal media who refuses to tell the truth; and the lack of education in most Americans...

"When you have people like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Mario Cuomo and George Mitchell espousing these beliefs, and very few people out in the public eye actually telling the truth about taxes (mainly Jack Kemp), it's hard to educate the masses."

The truth, this reader said, is that "a lack of federal revenue has never been the cause of deficits; it's always been too much spending." Tax cuts "increase" federal revenue rather than reducing it, he said, "unless every person who receives a tax cut either buries their money in the back yard or puts it under the mattress."

And there was this to-the-point comment from a reader who would seem to have no tolerance for wasted words or for wasted spending by the government.

"The public has been fooled by "Clinton-speak" where new taxes become `investments.' My sister-in-law wants her free prescription drugs. That her two working sons will be paying for them through taxes doesn't seem to connect with her.

"And people... who make big bucks can't remember the days when dribs and drabs returned to them in tax cuts added up eventually. Like you, I am dismayed that people DON'T WANT THEIR MONEY BACK!" Well, some people do.

2000Copyright
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.