Editorials

Some people are just now getting their income tax rebate checks, which officials have tried to more accurately describe by calling them economic stimulus payments, and the impact of those payments still is mostly undetermined.

The payments, approved by a bipartisan majority of Congress, reflect recognition among legislators that people having more money to spend is good for the economy. But the government costs involved in passing out all those checks might offset much of the benefit.

It started out as a rebate to taxpayers of some of the tax money they paid in, but the stipend also was extended to anyone filing a tax return, including many who paid no taxes. Part of the government’s promotional efforts on the program included urging people to file tax returns just so they could get on the list.

And for some reason the operation included sending out letters to those on the rebate list telling them a check was being mailed to them in a few days, doubling the handling expense it would appear.

Some might consider it puzzling that many legislators who propose tax increases and want the tax cuts of the early 2000s to expire, apparently think the idea of giving people more money to spend really will boost the economy, since they supported the rebates.

Letting taxpayers keep more of their money in the first place with lower taxes would be a much more efficient way to accomplish this goal and it would eliminating the government handling cost. History shows that boosts federal tax revenues, too.

A recent Associated Press story reported views of the two major party apparent presidential candidates on the economy which was described as “staggering under the Bush administration.” The report fails to note the economy was doing very well under the Bush administration for six years before the Democrats gained control of Congress.

Also, most current economic woes of average citizens center on high gasoline prices which appear directly traceable to Democratic embracement of an energy policy clearly impeding domestic oil and gas exploration and refining capacity. And they continue to hold that course, although some wavering seems to be taking place.

Barack Obama, the probable Democratic presidential nominee, wants the government to send out a “second stimulus package” of $50 billion that would provide energy rebate checks for many families, a fund to help families avoid foreclosure and increased assistance for states hit especially hard by economic cutbacks.

That might be a bargain price to provide his list of “something for everybody,” but Obama hasn’t explained just who is going to have to pay the bill. Last time it was mentioned, the United States Treasury balance was deep in the red.

Obama’s political visions often mentioned at his election rallies far exceed the “chicken in every pot” promise a presidential candidate campaigned on years ago. Some of his pledges: eliminate income taxes for retirees making less than $50,000 a year, start a nest egg for working families who earn under $75,000, provide subsidies for health care, college tuition and alternative energy, among other things, and still cut taxes for just about everybody except the very rich.

If government does furnish all of those things to all of those people, one outcome is certain — there won’t be any rich taxpayers very long. Who will pay the bills then?

John McCain, the GOP’s apparent nominee, hasn’t ventured into such widespread government largesse pledges, promising only to cut taxes for all and raise them on none.

He targets government growth as one of the major problems, noting that government has grown by 60 percent in the last eight years and saying, “That is simply inexcusable.” Government should shrink, not grow, he added.

Simplifying the tax code, maintaining free trade and eliminating government waste are other objectives McCain has mentioned.

The real solution to the nation’s economic problems will not come from government, but from the ambition, enterprise and hard work of the American people, a formula that has made this country the envy of the world.

Government can best stimulate this process by mainly staying out the way and eliminating barriers to entrepreneurial success.

That is a proven formula people should keep in mind when assessing candidates this election year.

()