It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Thirty-Four

"Tax Cuts and 9/11" (Part One)

The core of George W. Bush's initial domestic agenda was a huge tax cut totaling more than one and a quarter trillion dollars over tens years. The President argued that with "projected" surpluses of about five and a half trillion dollars over the same ten year period,* this would give taxpayers a sort of rebate on their over payment of taxes and help boost the economy, which was in a slowdown. The tax cuts were to be generally phased in over a period of years, then expire after ten years (12/31/2010).** The new law both lowered the estate tax rate and excluded a larger amount from that tax, with a total elimination of the tax scheduled after ten years. This was a major boon to the wealthiest Americans. Income tax rates were generally reduced 3% for the overwhelming percentage of taxpayers, but rates were reduced by more than four and a half percent for the wealthy. Some conservatives argued the cuts would eliminate national debt, while opponents argued the skewing of cuts toward the wealthy would worsen the already growing concentration of wealth in the hands of a small percentage of Americans, and that the surpluses would be greatly diminished, if not eliminated. The bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 230 to 197 (with 5 not voting), with support from only 13 Democrats, but all 216 Republicans (one independent also voted "yes"); in the Senate the vote was 62 to 38, with 12 Democrats joining 50 Republicans for passage, with 38 Democrats opposing.

Another major initiative was in education, and the "No Child Left Behind Act" had bipartisan support. The complex law basically required states to administer standardized tests to all students, with emphasis on basic education skills. Further, states had to set criteria for hiring and retaining qualified teachers. Schools where students performed poorly in certain subjects were to be targeted for improvement, which could mean the replacement of teachers and administrators. The law is very complex and for those interested, check online for more information or, better yet, check your local library. The "basic measure" passed the House by a vote of 384 to 45, with 34 Republicans, 10 Democrats and 1 independent opposing (4 not voting). In the Senate, the bill passed 91 to 8 (1 not voting), with 6 Republicans and 2 Democrats opposing.***  

* It is important to note the figures were based upon ten years. Politicians and political operatives in both parties love to toss figures around, but a perspective should be kept on the time period involved, although the cumulative effect is important. Just for the sake of example: "We're going to cut a half a trillion dollars from program XYZ." Politicians love to use that word "trillion" and they'll use it whenever they can, as it is more attention grabbing than saying "500 billion." Notice though too, no time frame is included. A 500 billion dollar cut in any of the nation's biggest programs in one or two years would be staggering, but if it is over ten or twenty years, the cut is likely to be much more manageable.

** Once these phased in tax cuts became law, many were then expedited in a new tax law in 2003.

*** These votes were on what really constituted the basic bill, but differences between the House and Senate versions required those differences to be worked out in a joint committee, and then the finalized version had to be passed again and then signed into law by the President. These vote totals varied slightly from the earlier votes on the basic measure given in the main text above; 381 to 41 in the House and 87 to 10 in the Senate.   

WORD HISTORY:
Quell-This verb traces back to Indo European "kwel," which had the notion of "to inflict pain, to torture, torment." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "kwaljanan," with the same basic meanings. This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "cwellan," which meant "to kill, to murder." Later the "cw" came to be spelled "qu," and the main meaning softened to "suppress," as the "kill" meaning is now obsolete. One German source mentions that the English "suppress" meaning was initially literary and poetic in usage, but then became the main meaning. Other Germanic languages have: German "quälen," which still means "to torture;" Low German Saxon "quelen," which means "to inflict pain, torture;" Dutch "kwellen," which means "to torment," but also "to beat to pieces." The Old Norse form "kvelja," meant "to torture, torment," and "presumably" these are the descendants of that form, but with a shift in meaning, although still with the idea of "inflicting pain (torture)," but also of "choking, smothering;" that is, "suppressing," in a figurative sense: Danish "kvaele," which means "to strangle, to choke," Norwegian "kvele," meaning "to choke, to suffocate," Swedish "kvävas," also meaning "to choke, to suffocate," Icelandic "kaefa," meaning "to smother." Interestingly, the North Germanic languages still use forms of the word to mean "torture, torment, pain, agony," but they are all noun forms, as they use other, unrelated, words in modern times to convey those meanings in verb forms. Notice both Swedish and Icelandic have lost the "L" sound, Swedish has added another "v" sound, and Icelandic has transposed the vowel and "v/f" sounds.