Supporting our troops doesn’t mean supporting Bush’s tax cuts

It’s difficult to say how maddening it is to see the White House manipulating support for our troops to justify a reckless political agenda. I’m going to give it a try anyway.

Earlier today I noted the success Senate Democrats and a handful of GOP moderates had in reducing the size of Bush’s proposed $726 billion tax cut. During the debate over the reduction, most Senate Republicans made predictable arguments in defense of the administration’s request: it will stimulate the economy (which isn’t true), it will create jobs (also false), and the increased growth will help bring the budget back into balance (so profoundly untrue it strains credulity). As the Washington Post reported today, the White House agrees with these discredited arguments, but is choosing to emphasize one more: the tax cuts will be good for the military and the service men and women fighting the war.

Ari Fleischer, for example, said earlier this week that the president’s proposed tax cut will help ensure that “when our men and women in the military return home, they’ll have jobs to come home to.”

First, let’s look at the merits of the tax cuts = jobs for the military argument. In 2001, Bush pushed through a $1.3 trillion tax cut. Since then, unemployment has gone up, not down, across every segment of our economy. In addition, as the Post notes, those from the reserves who fight in Iraq and had jobs before will have those same jobs when they return regardless of whether the budget includes tax cuts. A 1994 measure signed into law by President Clinton mandates that employers “must reinstate reservists in similar positions when they return from service.”

While Fleischer makes faulty economic arguments, the fact also remains that the White House has got a lot of nerve trying to take advantage of the war in this fashion.

I realize the administration can’t just tell it like it is. Fleischer can’t very well tell the White House press corps that Bush wants more tax breaks for wealthy Americans who don’t need them out of some twisted devotion to “trickle-down” economics. But to use perverse reasoning to connect our troops to these tax cuts is low.

Maybe one of those brave White House reporters can ask Fleischer a question for me: If the administration is so concerned about helping our troops, why did the president announce last week that he proposes cutting funding for schools that aid children of military personnel? Didn’t the proposed tax cut for the wealthy made budget cuts like these necessary? Would the president be willing to scale back the tax cuts in order to reinstate funding for these schools?

If Bush and his cohorts want to pursue an irresponsible agenda, fine; let’s debate it on the merits. But don’t exploit tragedies and warfare to justify reckless domestic policies.