is no substitute for working-class action.rnTlic’ prepare for a whirlwind that supposedlyrnwill sweep away the garbage ofrnhistory, leaving clear the road to progress,rnhistcad, this whirlwind will blow awavrnthe nation’s moral and religious foundations,rnla ing waste to all roads, knockingrnout all sign posts, and leaving a panicked,rnconfused people to find its way—or tornvield to someone claiming to know thernway. They likewise refuse to acknowledgernthat a racial whirlwind alreadyrncame tlirough not long ago, with horrificrnresults. Note that such a scenario posesrnmuch greater risks to blacks than tornwhites. And as a Jew, I am particulariyrnenraged that so many of Kwanzaa’srnvhitc apologists are themselves Jevs.rnBe that as it may, one is not obliged tornsit back and watch as things “work themsehesrnout” in the name of “self-determination.”rnFor the “self” being invoked is arn’iolent, irrational changeling that canrnonl- breed anarchy, with worse up ahead.rnNicholas Stix writes from New York City.rnC O N O M I C SrnWho Are the Taxers?rnby Jeffrey TuckerrnNever say Republicans can’t learn.rnAfter losing the presidency in 1992rnon the tax issue, they now use euphemismsrnfor their tax hikes and hidernthe increases with new and improved fiscalrngimmickry, hi this Congress, thernword “reform” has come to be synonymousrnwith a scheme to extract morernmoney from the private sector, whilernseeking to avoid paying the electoralrnprice.rnThis Congress has revived an attackrnon “loopholes” as evidence of specialinterestrnprivilege and a fiscal evil thatrnmust be destroyed. The House Was andrnMeans Committee, Washington’s leadingrnhotbed of congressional graft, votedrnto grab another $19 billion from the pri-rn’ate sector through this sneaky means.rnThe flat taxers similarly denounce allrn”loopholes,” and propose to eliminaternthe charitable deduction and the mortgage-rninterest deduction. Meanwhile,rnBill Archer of Texas proposes to close thern”loopholes” used by corporate donors tornthe Democrats (the old tax-and-spcndrnparty), but, of course, he invites theserncorporations to “work with” him on thernfinal bill.rnWhat exactly is a “loophole”? It is anrnexception to the general rule that incomernof a certain variety is to be taxedrnat some level. Let’s say, for example,rnthat all furniture manufacturers arerntaxed at 20 percent, while the makers ofrnroll-top desks are taxed at only five percent.rnWe have here a “loophole” thatrnroll-top desk makers undoubtedly faorrnand would like to keep. That, presumably,rnmakes them a special interest.rnBut exactly who are these desk makersrnhurting by lobbying to retain their specialrntax break? Only those who wouldrnotherwise benefit from stealing theirrnprofits. As for the producers, they arernmerely gaining a legal right to keep anrnadditional quantity of the profits gainedrnfrom selling consumers goods they wantrnto buy. What, then, would be the pointrnof denouncing these people as a “specialrninterest” that must be stamped out andrnthen raising their taxes up to 20 percent?rnSome economists say the loopholernshould be repealed on grounds that itrndistorts market decision making. Thatrnis, more people go into roll-top desk makingrnthan would be the case without thernloophole. But looked at from anotherrnview, the relatively loyv tax on roll-tops isrnless discouraging to potential producersrnthan the higher tax on other furniture.rnThe solution to this alleged distortion,rnthen, is to lower taxes on all furniture insteadrnof plugging a loophole that appliesrnto one. Why not turn the whole industryrninto a loophole?rnThis point is inadmissible in conventionalrnpolitical debate. Politicians devotedrnto “revenue neutrality” have apparentlyrnsworn an oath never to allowrngoernment revenue to decline. If the’rncatch someone keeping more monernthan someone else, they always proposernto “upwardly harmonize” the tax rates.rnThis is not only economicallv destructive;rnit’s unjust as well.rnLet’s say a band of criminals has beenrnraiding your neighborhood, but nisteriouslyrnleaving one house untouched. As arnresult, this house’s residents have theirrnproperty and their peace of mind. Itrnwould be absurd to deal with the crimernwa’e by demanding equal damage to allrnhouses, even if the untouched house hadrnsuccessfully pleaded to be left alone. Torncrystallize the analogy to tax reform, rememberrnthat the ones proposing the rulernof equal destruction arc the criminalsrnthemselves. Destroying more innocentrnpeople’s property and peace of mind canrnonly satisfy the envious; indeed, envyrnand greed are the driving forces behindrnthe movement to close loopholes.rnEven worse, the Republican leadershiprnwould have us believe that by repealingrntargeted tax allowances, they arernattacking “corporate welfare.” But howrncan this be? Welfare clients lie off otherrnpeople’s money taken by force. Peoplernusing tax breaks are merely trsing to keeprntheir own money from becoming governmentrnproperty by force. People usingrntax breaks are the hosts; bums living offrnothers are the parasites. Using the wordrn”welfare” to describe both can only be arndeliberate attempt to disguise the real issue.rnA loophole rescinded constitutesrnnot welfare repealed but a tax raised.rnThe first signs that tax policy was gettingrnoff track came eariy in this Congress.rnWashington think-tanks, socialist andrnfree market, joined forces to denouncern”corporate welfare.” Repeal that, theyrnsaid, before you go after conventionalrnwelfare. Of course, the purpose of thernmakeshift coalition was to enhance thernprospects of favorable media attention,rnwhich it did. But the liberals’ reasons forrnjoining the coalition was to cut industrialrnsubsidies given in the name of defensern(good idea) and repeal corporate loopholesrn(bad idea). Meanwhile, the “freemarket”rnguys had something else inrnmind. They were calling for a cut in subsidiesrnto the sugar industry, bee keepers,rnand the like (good ideas) and workrntoward a flat tax b- repealing certainrndeductions (bad idea), while quietlyrndistancing themselves from what theyrnknew to be the questionable agenda ofrnthe liberals (impossible).rnThe organizers played down theserndifferences, and the results were predictable.rnCongress tossed a,side the goodrnparts of both agendas (there’s been norncut in the military or cash subsidies forrnother industries) and kept the bad partsrn(repealing tax breaks and deductionsrnwherever possible). The think-tanksrnhave been reluctant to draw attention tornthis subversion because the’ arc alwaysrnanxious to take credit for anythingrnCongress passes if it approximates therngoal of a pet project. The result—asrncould have been predicted from thernbeginning—was that Capitol Hill libcr-rnJANUARY 1996/43rnrnrn