home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
091994
/
09199919.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1995-02-26
|
6KB
|
115 lines
<text id=94TT1265>
<title>
Sep. 19, 1994: Government:A Fever for Tax Cuts
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1994
Sep. 19, 1994 So Young to Kill, So Young to Die
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
GOVERNMENT, Page 43
A Fever for Tax Cuts
</hdr>
<body>
<p> Buoyed by rising revenues, states embark on a binge of rate
cutting. Will Clinton be tempted to join in?
</p>
<p>By George J. Church--Reported by Bonnie Angelo/New York, Dan Cray/Los Angeles and
Michael Duffy/Washington
</p>
<p> Ah, the blessings of a growing economy! Especially if you happen
to be a Governor or a state legislator. It makes it possible
to forget all that fiscal-stringency stuff that caused so much
trouble the past few years and start cutting taxes again--just in time for this year's state elections too.
</p>
<p> But wait. Left to itself, some of President Clinton's advisers
worry, the economy may not keep growing this strongly, or at
all, for the next two years. What might guarantee that it will?
A federal tax cut, of course, enacted in plenty of time to win
the gratitude of voters before the 1996 presidential election.
</p>
<p> Which proves once more that for politicians from statehouse
to White House, thinking about the next election is virtually
synonymous with thinking about tax cuts--as long as the state
of the economy provides any plausible excuse for doing so. To
candidate Clinton that seemed to be the case in 1992, but he
abandoned his pledge of a tax cut for the middle class as soon
as he moved into the Oval Office. Cutting a menacing budget
deficit took precedence. Now, however, some of his advisers
are pushing to revive the idea next spring.
</p>
<p> The primary motive is political. Clinton knows Republicans are
already stockpiling videotapes of him making promises that he
later broke, and the middle-class tax cut is a major one. Moreover,
on Sept. 27, G.O.P. House members and candidates will hold an
extravaganza at the West Front of the Capitol to promote a unified
platform for their campaigns. Tax cuts will be prominently featured;
Representative John Kasich of Ohio is pushing a tax credit of
$500 for each child in a family, every year. Says he: "Obviously
the White House is going to try to steal it."
</p>
<p> Maybe, maybe not. Those Clinton political counselors promoting
a tax cut contend that it may be needed to stimulate consumer
buying and keep retail sales and production growing. But the
President's economic advisers, by contrast, think business needs
no such stimulus. They fear that the loss of revenues from a
tax cut not offset by budget cuts or revenue increases elsewhere
might cause the deficit to start growing again, forcing up interest
rates and harming rather than helping business. Clinton has
yet to make up his mind.
</p>
<p> Tax cuts at the state level have more economic justification.
The quickening expansion is pouring money into state coffers;
overall tax collections are running 6% ahead of the past fiscal
year. Sales-tax receipts are especially strong; for all 50 states
they rose 8% in the second quarter over the 1993 period, and
18 states had double-digit increases. In some states, the growth
of spending has slowed, thanks to brutal cuts enacted, along
with heavy tax increases, to keep budgets balanced during and
immediately after the 1990-91 recession (48 states are required
by law to balance their budgets every year).
</p>
<p> Now the states are in a position to give some money back to
their taxpayers. The Center for the Study of the States at the
Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany, New
York, counts 20 states that have cut taxes this year, vs. 10
that have raised them. Institute director Steven Gold calculates
that the net cut for all 50 states amounts to $1.7 billion a
year.
</p>
<p> New York cut its taxes to the lowest level in 30 years, with
reductions totaling $470 million, although businesses benefited
more than individuals. Arizona, which raised state taxes a total
of $500 million between 1988 and 1990, has reduced them again
in each of the past three years; this year's reduction came
to $100 million. New Jersey in just six months has reduced income
taxes 15%, half of what once seemed a pie-in-the-sky promise
by new Governor Christine Todd Whitman to enact a 30% slash
over three years. The reductions have made Whitman not only
highly popular locally but also a rising star in national Republican
circles.
</p>
<p> Some killjoys think the states will rue the day that they got
carried away by tax-cut fever. The rise in state revenues is
not sustainable, says Hal Hovey, editor and publisher of State
Budget & Tax News, a bimonthly publication. He believes spending
will again be pushed up by "two elephants": Medicaid spending,
which will rise once the economy slows, and the severe pressure
of rising prison populations. So states, he thinks, will have
to either cut other services or raise taxes again, or both.
Vermont Governor Howard Dean, chairman of the National Governors
Association, thinks momentarily flush states should put money
into contingency funds to cushion the effects of the inevitable
next slowdown. "But the legislators can't keep their hands off,"
he laments. His legislature, against liberal resistance, brought
taxes back down to pre-1991 levels, forcing Dean to "cut ((spending
on)) all kinds of things from education to welfare"--an indication
of how difficult tax-cut pressure is to resist.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>