Home > Bush’s Death Tax

Bush’s Death Tax

by Open-Publishing - Wednesday 7 September 2005
13 comments

Edito Governments Catastrophes USA Wayne Besen

by Wayne Besen

This may be politically incorrect, but I’m having serious qualms about writing a check for Hurricane relief. The way I see it, I already gave my fare share for the effort on April 15. This is Tax Day, the painful moment where we surrender a large chunk of our hard earned change to the federal government, so they can fix levees and plan for national emergencies.

President George W. Bush, however, decided to squander this money on tax breaks for Cappuccino Conservatives and attacking a nation in the name of 9-11 that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. In the run-up to our superfluous war, the Pottery Barn rule was often invoked: "You break it, You own it."

Now we own it and we are broke.

Of course, the conservative game plan was always to starve the beast, meaning cut taxes to run up a massive debt, which would then give them an alibi to cut popular federal programs. But efforts to replace the New Deal with a Raw Deal meant that "Big Government" would be ill prepared to help with disasters such as New Orleans becoming Atlantis.

The President’s solution to this shortfall is rallying what he terms, "the armies of compassion". Americans have always been extraordinarily altruistic and kind in the face of tragedy and perhaps that is what I love best about my country.

However, make no mistake about it, this is not charity, this is a backdoor tax and the privatization of disaster relief. Americans are reaching into their wallets to write checks to generously pay for what the federal government should have unquestionably funded in the first place.

What rankles me the most is that this was not a natural disaster. This was a political apocalypse that should have been prevented. In 1998, a $14 billion master plan was put together called Coast 2050 that addressed how to prevent such a tragedy in New Orleans. Thanks to the fiscal shortage created by Bush’s tax windfall for Rolls Royce Republicans during a time of war, the plan to protect the city was scuttled.

In a feeble attempt to seek absolution from culpability, Bush pleaded ignorance saying, "I don’t think anyone could have anticipated the breach of the levees." Bush brags that he does not read the newspaper. Anyone who does read on a regular basis was likely aware of the catastrophic problems New Orleans faced if it encountered a major hurricane. Instead of writing a check for Hurricane victims, perhaps my money would be better spent buying the president a subscription to The Washington Post.

Bush’s cavalier attitude towards disaster preparedness is best illustrated by the way he has handled the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Scientists have warned that global warming may lead to an increase in the frequency of violent storms. While Bush may not believe in global warming, there aren’t many scientists these days who are predicting fewer storms. So, it was perplexing that the president folded FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security, an agency that is likely to prioritize terrorists over tornadoes.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman pointed out that Bush’s first appointee to run FEMA was a political buddy, Joseph Allbaugh, whose main experience in natural disasters was once leaving his umbrella at a restaurant. Allbaugh’s successor, Michael Brown’s chief qualification was that he was Allbaugh’s roommate.

With people having a difficult time believing the Bush administration could be this astoundingly incompetent, charges of racism are natural. I don’t think for a minute that Bush is a racist. However, if there was bias, it was likely based more on class and politics than race. Put the cowboy act aside, and one sees that Bush grew up as a wealthy prince. Having such a privileged background combined with an incurious mind can be lethal. Did Bush know that some people can’t afford cars and must rely on public transportation to escape?

Politically speaking, this is a long-term boon for Republicans and there was an incentive to let New Orleans sink. Poor blacks and whites will not be able to afford to move back. Notice that they got a one-way ticket to Texas. New Orleans will likely be rebuilt as a rich, white Disneyfied imitation of the original. Without a diverse New Orleans, Louisiana becomes a monolithically Republican state. Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, for example, can kiss her career goodbye.

In the face of backlash, Republicans temporarily shelved their plans this week to repeal the Estate Tax, which they adroitly renamed the "Death Tax". This was a smart move because the charitable checks we are all paying to cover the destitution and carnage caused by Bush’s policies, is a "Death Tax" if I’ve ever seen one.

http://www.waynebesen.com/columns/2...

Forum posts

  • The death taxes and death laws came illegally in the 1930’s, when our government went bankrupt and sold the US to England. The Queen controls the government in the US. Many of our taxes are unconstitutional, therefore null and void. Taxes on wages are null and void. Taxes on our private property, land, is null and void. People are learning about these unconstitutional laws and the laws that have been passed since the 1930’s. Every man and woman who has served in the military, Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act, are to receive between 2,000 and 4,000 acres of Patented Land upon completion of service. We are to be paid in real money/ and not credits/IOU’s (5 USC 8116, 8130, and 8157). This act is still on the books today. When our children are taught the true history of the world and the Constitution of America and not lies, there may be hope for future generations.

    • All you can really do after reading the post above is laugh. LOL!

    • by Prabhata

      I am reluctant to help because I believe that our generousity is misunderstood. I believe that the day of the disaster the president should have called Congress and demanded that all Americans come together and help those in distress. The way to do that equitably is to put a tax to pay for the disaster. In other words we should all give money whether we feel generous or not. We are all Americans.

    • After all, a village if\diot was elected presidente generalismo.

    • If money is taxed, it is not "given," it is confiscated. Decent people should give freely to help those in need regardless of taxation.

      MTT

  • I am one other person who doesn’t feel right about writing a check for this disaster. There was an enormous amount of money collected after 9/11 and there are reports that a lot of it went into the war effort. We have a limited amount of real information about the flow of money, and I can’t just trust the agencies collecting the money. And I pay taxes!

    • Excellent points. The other issue to consider is the settlement the U S government made to 9-11 victims’ families. Many fundraising experts pointed out at the time that the vast amount of money donated to 9-11 families by the American people precluded the government’s having to make payment to these same families; so why DID they pay? The truth is, it was a way of limiting liability of the U S government, and for government subsidized industry like the airlines, for 9-11. Each family who received a settlement from the government had to sign a "no sue" waiver, guaranteeing that whatever settlement was given would be the end of it: no more lawsuits. It’s another form of tort reform that the Bushies are all so fond of. The waiver and acceptance of government settlement was also a de facto method of stopping unquiries into 9-11, i.e. who exactly was behind the attacks, and why did the U S government allow well connected upper class Saudis to leave the U S unquestioned. Anyone want to guess what further tab Katrina might run if the government came up with a settlement amount for each family? Anyone want to guess how quickly Bushie legal team will write some sort of waiver?

    • I donated diapers—lots of them—to Katrina victims. They can’t be skimmed or put to weird uses. Besides, the idea of being stranded in some school gym with no diapers for your baby sounds particularly awful to me.

      MTT

  • They had a telethon on TV showing people waiting to be rescued implying ’give us money to save these people’. AS IF money had anything to do with it. We already had the resources to save these people, FEMA was turning all kinds of aid away, water, food, gas, firefighters, national guard. Now they are using it as a big fundraiser. The Redcross website states that 40% goes to administrative costs...ridiculous. Not to mention all of the money the government has wasted, it is absurd for them to expect the American people to pay yet again. They are bleeding us dry folks, and laughing their asses off about it. Meanwhile, before survivors were given food or water, Halliburton had already gotten a contract to rebuild. IT’s SICK!!

    • Yes, my friend. It’s sick allright. unfortunately thus are the conditions on 2005. Hopefully, things might improve by 3005!!!!!!

  • If you think the top post is so funny, read this - http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

  • I am in agreement.

    My money has already gone to pay for things like this through my taxes.Only because
    the Bush administration looted this money is it necessary for the Katrina survivors to rely on
    charity.

    I am enheartened that some people will give money to the survivors - but unfortunately
    it is not to them outright but through various charities. Some, like the Red Corss
    are not that trustworthy. The Red Cross had a deplorable record in the events surrounding
    the Southern California wildfires. They did little except show up for a short time, erect
    some tents that they opened to any who cared to live like that, and then they left.

    I think after those fires, the Red Cross pocketed something like 85% of the funding donated
    to it.

    Salvation Army is a much more honorable choice for your chairty dollars.

  • The First Amendment guarantees that - Congress shall make NO law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to PETITION the GOVERNMENT for a REDRESS of GRIEVANCES.

    Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan, has ruled that the Constitution does not apply to him. Check it out.
    http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005-09-13.htm

    This deceit resides with most in Washington and through most of those with power in the STATES. We The People need lawful representatives to fill the positions to represent the people. If you choose security over freedom, you will lose both. The government is in place to represent the people and not the other way around. Stand up and raise your voice and be heard.