Intelligence missing in political sitcoms
Party spokespersons lack the information to provide quality commentary

Americans should be aggravated with the state of our national political dialogue. Regardless of network, the “political sitcoms” mimic each other. Tim Russert and the like act as referee while opposing sides feign debate. The resulting dialogue, however, is of poor quality.

Democrats and Republicans, uttering scripted responses, demonstrate limited intellectual acuity and are completely void of candor.

Nevertheless, Americans watch, each time hoping that someone will finally treat us (the viewers) with some dignity and say something intelligent.

Recently, I sat watching CNN’s “Crossfire.” The issue of discussion was George Bush’s tax plan. The two guest debaters, both senators, began to “argue” the case. Both the Democrat and Republican went through their “song and dance,” then the two commentators weighed in.

Unsurprisingly, even with four experienced debaters present, neither side ever addressed their opponent’s argument.

There are few things that irritate me as much as the “smoke and mirrors” of national politics. So, I am compelled to critique the fluff of the current political discourse.

It is imperative that Americans recognize the fact that the current debate over taxes is politicized far beyond the reach of bipartisanship. So we must accept the fact that party spokespersons lack any credibility on the matter. The tax issue is central to the perpetuation of the party establishment. It is the only trump card Republicans have ever held over Democrats, and if they want the continued financial support of business, they must produce the tax reforms advocated by their constituency. With Bush’s election, Republicans have run out of excuses, and the clock is ticking.

The Republican majority in both houses is tenuous, and if 2002 follows historic patterns, they will most likely lose one of the houses of Congress. This reality has contributed to the urgent nature of Bush’s tax cut. Clearly the only way to mitigate the spending increases, which are sure to flow from a Democratic house of congress, is to cut budget surpluses prior to 2002.

A cut in the budget surplus in the form of tax reform would inhibit the spending of a future Democratic congress. Meanwhile, the slowing economy is providing Republicans both a veil, under which they can placate their base, and a marketing tool that can be utilized to favorably mold public opinion.

This understood, it becomes clear as to the real reason that Democrats are so bitterly opposed to Bush’s tax reforms. Listen to their rhetoric.

In my Ally McBeal moments I often visualize them as squawking banshees. Beginning last week, Dick Gephardt, the Democratic minority leader, ran around Wahington, D.C. calling the first portion of the tax cut the most fiscally irresponsible action ever taken by the federal government. But I wonder, does he really think the current president and the Republican Party want to be remembered as the people who undermined Bill Clinton’s economy? Talk about the end of the Republican Party.

Even cuter than the squawking being done by Capitol Hill Democrats, is their recent attempt to malign the Texas economy. For some reason Democrats have attempted to discredit the Bush tax plan nationally by suggesting that the Texas economy and the state government are in a crisis due to the then governor’s tax reforms. Ironically, however, most economic forecasters predict that should the nation’s economy drift into recession, the Texas economy will fare far better than most. What that means is that the average citizen will be doing better financially in Texas than he would be in a lot of other places. But I guess if you are a Democrat that does not matter. What is most important is the fact that you could bloat Austin’s bureaucracy.

Clearly, the elusive agendas of the two political parties continue to manipulate the political discourse on tax reform without concern for veracity or appropriateness.

Lucas Henderson is a senior political science and international relations major from Brazil.
He can be reached at (l.r.henderson@student.tcu.edu).

Editorial policy: The content of the Opinion page does not necessarily represent the views of Texas Christian University. Unsigned editorials represent the view of the TCU Daily Skiff editorial board. Signed letters, columns and cartoons represent the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board.

Letters to the editor: The Skiff welcomes letters to the editor for publication. Letters must be typed, double-spaced, signed and limited to 250 words. To submit a letter, bring it to the Skiff, Moudy 291S; mail it to TCU Box 298050; e-mail it to skiffletters@tcu.edu or fax it to 257-7133. Letters must include the author’s classification, major and phone number. The Skiff reserves the right to edit or reject letters for style, taste and size restrictions.