THE TIDE is turning in American politics, according to the Associated Press. In a poll conducted last week, they revealed that 80 percent of Americans think tax cuts are helping "someone else." Additionally, 72 percent of those polled would rather vote for a congressional candidate who vowed to balance the budget rather than one who would cut taxes. When asked to predict their level of taxation following the Bush tax cuts that Congress passed last year, more than half predicted that their taxes would not go down at all, and an additional 36 percent thought their taxes only would "go down a little." While many may construe the AP data to reflect a positive trend toward more responsible voter decision-making, political theory and recent campaign examples openly contradict this false optimism.
Scottish economic theorist Adam Smith offered the concept that society is composed of independent individuals fighting for their own interests. Such competing interests work, through an "invisible hand" mechanism to promote the common good. James Madison, on whose political foundation the American experiment is grounded, wrote that these independent interests compete in the marketplace of societal welfare. This preserves liberty for minority interests. Clearly, man is inherently selfish in his political decisions. In the final contest of reason versus self-interest, the voter will always look out for number one, and this contradicts the results found by the AP poll.
So, what of the poll data? Why would nearly three quarters of the sample group tell a pollster that they would rather see a balanced budget than receive more of their paycheck each year? The problem is that of perception. When asked by a stranger, any individual is readily going to advocate the more rational fiscal policy. Few will admit readily that they are susceptible to tax-cut ploys by campaigning politicians. However, when it comes time to draw the curtain, step into the booth, and cast a vote, few are concerned with perception, yet most will decide in favor of the candidate with the most striking benefits for their life.
Additionally, voters overwhelmingly profess that they are not the ones that tax cuts help. The question, "generally, when politicians talk about tax cuts, do you think those tax cuts are aimed at helping?" was answered, "someone else," by 80 percent of those polled. This distrust of the federal government only further erodes the claim that voters are becoming more public-minded in their decision at the polls.
For as long as taxes represent one of the largest single interests of the average voter in America, campaigns will continue to promise more for less. Take Virginia, for example. James S. Gilmore III swept the gubernatorial election in 1997 on promises to refund the state tax based on automobile ownership. Although the "car tax" refund seemingly has bankrupted the Commonwealth and created a host of problems for state institutional funding for the near future, the public mandate was clear following the election. Granted, few lay persons could have anticipated the full repercussions of the policy, and the "no car tax" slogan won more voters than Democratic opponent Don Beyer's campaign, which focused on improvements for public education. At the federal level, President Bush's tax plan played a significant role in his 2000 campaign effort and was one of the first initiatives to be pushed through the legislature following his election. Such measures demonstrate a very real constituency within the public who are susceptible to tax-cut promises.
While the AP poll may seem to illustrate a trend toward more rational fiscal decisions from the public, the reality is that voters have always and will continue to make political decisions based on their own immediate, best interest. Cutting taxes only works if the policy can be made to coincide with the business cycle. As cumbersome as the American legislative process is, and as unpopular as such policy decisions are within Congress, it is unfortunate that such tactics remain prevalent in our political system. While unfortunate, the reality is unalterable: Tax cuts are always an easy sell before elections.
(Preston Lloyd's column runs Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at plloyd@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
