Some Americans casually throw around words and phrases that have become clichéd, even though they are not factual. One that was immensely popular four years ago was “tax cuts for the wealthy.” Since that phrase is coming back into vogue with the current crop of presidential candidates, it might be a good time to review the data to ascertain how apropos the phrase is.

You’ll recall, the phrase gained prominence with President Bush who in 2001 and 2003, proposed, and Congress ratified, two series of tax cuts. The 2001 version reduced the income tax rates for all tax-payers, while the 2003 version cut the tax rates paid on dividend income and capital gains.

When the net benefits of both series of tax cuts are run against the actual tax collection data from the IRS, the results in absolute as well as relative terms are staggering. Dividing taxpayers into five brackets, those who benefited most were the lowest income, under $25,000 (a tax cut of 17.6%) per year, and those making about $60,000 per year (12.6%) according to IRS data. When the benefits of the second round of tax cuts are factored in, those in the $60,000 per year income level realized a total Federal tax savings of 24 percent. Those who make over $350,000 received a tax cut of 12.5%, while those who make over $1 million got about a 6% reduction. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the average Idaho household saw their Federal taxes drop by $1,811 per year.

The Wall Street Journal last week pointed out that the Bush tax cuts, in effect, triggered what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American History. The top 1% of taxpayers, who earn $388,806 and higher, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest percentage in at least 40 years. Taxpayers in the top 10% in income, those earning over $108,904, paid 71% of the total income taxes collected in 2006, again, the highest in at least 40 years.

When we look at the lowest income taxpayers, the figures are amazing. Those below median income levels paid a record low of 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1% of the income taxes collected for 2006.

What this illustrates is the fact that our Bush tax brackets, due to begin expiring in two years, is very progressive. The cries for the “rich” to pay their fair share are hollow whines bred of class envy and socialistic efforts to separate the financially successful from their earnings in the name of redistribution of wealth. As the figures from the IRS and the Wall Street Journal prove, the wealthy are paying more of their fair share than they’re given credit for.

Even with the tax cuts, the Treasury department receipts have run higher every year since they were implemented, and each year sets a new tax receipt record. As the Wall Street Journal points out, “This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen. The idea that this has been a giveaway to the rich is a figment of the left's imagination. Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003. No President has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his tax cuts. These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 from 3.5% in 2003.”

If you want a surefire shot in the foot of the economy, allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. That will take more capital out of the economy, reduce velocity in a slowing economic environment, and assure that we not only drop into a recession (we still don’t have a recession since it’s defined as two quarters of negative GDP growth) but that ensures that the recession is deep and prolonged.

John McCain may claim to not have the economic acumen he should, but he correctly calls for making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. Otherwise, tax rates will rise substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points; low-income taxpayers will see the 10-percent tax bracket disappear, and they will have to pay taxes at the 15-percent rate; married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return; taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits; taxes on dividends will increase beginning on January 1, 2009; taxes on capital gains will increase, also beginning on January 1, 2009; and Federal death taxes will come back to life in 2011, after fading down to nothing in 2010.

Not only should the tax reductions be made permanent, but any politician who says they should not be or calls for more taxes, should be relegated to the heap of discarded presidential wannabes represented by George Bush Sr., John Kerry, Al Gore, and Michael Dukakis. After all, don’t you think you can use that extra $1,800 more advantageously than your government?

Over 160 years ago, a group of Americans left the heartland of America seeking religious liberty and seeking to escape the persecution bred of suspicion and intolerance. Their creed demanded of them subservience to the laws of the land, and submission to presidents and magistrates in honoring and upholding the law. Yet due to the murders, rapes and pillaging they suffered at the hands of local residents in Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri, they headed west where they hoped to establish communities and settlements where they could live without fear of reprisal because of their religion.

The courage those thousands of freedom-loving pioneers is what we celebrate around the 24^th of July every year. On the 24^th of July, 1847 the first of the LDS people arrived at the edge of the mountains overlooking the Salt Lake Valley and their leader, Brigham Young declared, “This is the place.” A monument and a pioneer village now mark that spot in the Eastern foothills of Salt Lake City.

The thousand mile trek, navigated by some on wagon and some with crudely constructed handcarts, left hundreds of gravestone markers strewn along the way, marking the final resting spot of those who were willing to sacrifice everything for their freedom and their faith, and who ultimately did. The tales of courage, sacrifice, and determination manifest by those early pioneers stand as veritable ensigns of their character to us more than 160 years later. They also stand as reminders of the traits we will need as pioneers of our own era to preserve and perpetuate the greatness of America.

The pioneers of the 19^th century faced primarily physical perils of cold, disease, and exhaustion. We are pioneers of sorts in our time, as we face a new wave of perils that threaten not so much our lives, but the quality of life we enjoy in America. In our time, we face the peril of diminished freedom for questionable causes, and cynicism of the free market system that is the economic extension of fundamental personal liberty. We face the peril of secularism which seeks to remove any semblance of religion from the public square and would have us rewrite history to remove the Judeo-Christian value system from our culture and advocates pantheism centered in worship of the earth over advancement of human civilization.

We also face the peril of indoctrination by a mainstream media that advances an ideological agenda, sometimes subtly but increasingly overt. Most susceptible to such propaganda are our young people who are bombarded with subliminal and overt messages that would have them believe there is more truth and contemporary pertinence to contemporary secularists than in the words of our Founding Fathers.

We face the peril of a continued erosion of morality and propriety as any sense of right and wrong, but what is taught is couched in strictly secular terms. By so doing, morality is made relative, having no absolute values at the foundation of our collective belief system.

I relish the fact that our local observance of Pioneer Day has become an inclusive celebration. People of all races, creeds, and backgrounds enjoy the local festivities with apparently equal enthusiasm. This is truly a microcosm of the pioneering we face for future generations of Americans as we similarly unite across socio-economic and cultural lines to preserve the greatness of America for future generations.

In 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior: “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

The phrase “energy independence” is used by many of us who maintain a preference for self-sufficiency in our energy needs with the corollary of increased self-determination as a nation by not being beholden to other nations. As we see with the current oil crisis, those other nations can literally hold us over a barrel in fulfilling our consumption needs.

There are many reasons why we find ourselves in this situation, but one of the most significant factors is that we have literally had our hands tied in procuring and refining oil domestically to fill our needs. Although we have ample oil reserves to meet our needs, the strength of the environmental lobby and the Democratic Congress prevent us from accessing those reserves. Many current leases for off-shore drilling by U.S. companies are not producing in existing wells because the bureaucratic requirements for permits to actually make those leases productive precludes many from being exercised. 

The dirty little secret, that is not really a secret but is definitely dirty, is that the Democrats like having oil this high priced. In 2000 when President Bush took office, the price of a gallon of gasoline was about $1.44 nationally. By 2006, when the Democrats took control, it was as at $2.10. Since that time, it has spiked to over $4.00 per gallon.

Recall four years ago, John Kerry, while running for the Presidency, declared that the Federal Government should impose an additional 50 cent tax on gasoline to help curtail consumption. They want prices to be high!

In Oregon last week Obama said, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times whether we live in the desert or in the tundra, and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. You guys keep on using 25% of the world’s energy even though you only account for 3% of the world population, you go ahead and we’ll be just fine.” Karl Marx would be so proud.

To liberals like Obama, economics are zero-sum gains. If we’re doing okay, someone else is not because of us. And since we Americans enjoy such a high standard of living, we’re culpable for all the suffering in the world because we’re taking from the others. For anyone who understands the dynamics of market economics, this is pure gibberish. But from the perspective of socialistic, centralized control economics, it makes sense. So to liberals, what Obama is saying is like gospel, but to those who have even a modicum understanding of economics and common sense, it is idiocy.

Plus his facts are wrong (as usual, like the 58 United States), and lacking some key insights. Americans constitute 5.6% of the world population, and with our 20% of the world energy consumption, we produce over 25% of the global GDP, according to World Bank data.

I’m convinced that the underlying reason the Democrats oppose any viable solution to increasing the oil supply is that they see America as the problem not only with our consumption, but also because it ties so nicely into their notion of global warming. They want us to not use oil, and the higher the price is the less likely it is that we will continue to use it at current levels. That means fewer carbon emissions and all the irrational “end of the world” conclusions they draw from their fallacious ideological premise.

It is unfathomable to me that we would send “leaders” to Washington who condemn our standard of living and preach a form of minimalistic egalitarianism. What we need are solutions to our current challenges to facilitate our continued growth, not defeatist, effete denunciation of our American way of life!