From CLT's Chip Ford 1/28/2008 

At last the federal government has come to recognize that over-taxation has become a serious problem.  Taking too much of our money has reached the point where it's bringing on a recession.  Neither the Bush administration nor the U.S. Congress has publicly admitted it, but why else would the government be rushing to send taxpayers a quick rebate to "stimulate" the economy -- if it hadn't taken too much from us, enough to put the brakes on consumer spending?

In the throes of panic in an election year, politicians have finally found a bipartisan issue on which they can agree:  Republicans and Democrats alike don't want to run for reelection in the midst of a recession, whatever the cost.

But instead of reducing the tax burden permanently, they'd prefer to send each taxpayer a one-time check-in-the-mail, put the windfall in your hand personal-like.  If this keeps them out of trouble long enough, after reelection they'll just stick their hands back in your pocket next year.

If you don't think there's truth to my cynicism, then why are Washington politicians intent on sending out "rebates" even to those who don't pay a cent in taxes?  There is an honest definition of the term rebate, but what the government is proposing certainly doesn't fit it.

rebate >verb - 1. a) to give back (part of an amount paid); b) to make a deduction from (a bill) ;  2. to reduce, lessen;  3) >noun - a return of part of an amount paid, as for goods or services, serving as a reduction or discount.

-- Webster's New World Dictionary

A "tax rebate" for those who don't earn enough to pay taxes?  Now the push by AARP for "tax rebates" for those collecting Social Security benefits tax-free?  What a perfect example of Doublespeak -- like changing the long-accepted term "illegal alien" to "undocumented worker" or some other misleading euphemism.

And speaking of illegal aliens, how long before they march on Washington by the millions, demanding their "tax rebate" along with all the other freeloaders and tax-avoiders?

Call it a one-time government grant.  Call it social welfare for all.  Call it a redistribution scheme.  Call it priming-the-pump.  Just don't call it a rebate if the recipient paid nothing that can possibly be rebated.  Try getting a rebate in the private sector for any product without producing a sales receipt proving that you paid for it!

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby was unfortunately wrong.  Yes, there is a free lunch if you don't pay taxes to begin with but still get a "rebate"!

As always, the Catch-22 is Washington's need for ever-higher taxes -- to keep feeding government's ceaseless over-spending, to spend attempting to keep up with growing federal deficits and an incomprehensibly huge national debt.

As CLT member and author Robert Kelly notes in his latest book, "National Public Debt . . .":

When Truman left office, public debt was $215 billion, most of it directly related to the cost of World War Two that had to be partly financed by issuing U.S. securities -- a sensible use of the nation’s borrowing power....

Since that time, despite the fact that the U.S. was able to afford, out of current revenues, most of the increase in primary costs during the Korean, Vietnam and Cold Wars, debt increased to $4.8 trillion, fundamentally caused by uninterrupted annual deficits. And during this time primary costs were funded by borrowings, instead of by current revenues.

Washington can't afford a recession accompanied by diminished federal revenue.  The term for government "spending" has morphed over the years into another useful euphemism, "investment." In this situation, spending on one-time universal "rebates" can actually be considered an investment, to keep the long-term revenue stream flowing.  If it works.