The First Tuesday of November is Election Day which is a shame. Election Day should be April 15th, so that one could vote at the same time one fully reckons and pays his or her taxes to the federal government. The states, equally rapacious, are even less flexible with payment terms and less willing to agree as to what is deductible. It is a truism that no taxpayer enjoys paying taxes. Politicians though love your paying taxes. It is the coin of their realm with which they buy votes from interest groups from farmers to corporate subsidies to homeowner interest deductions. For example, over one-third of Americans pay rent, not mortgages, receive no deduction benefit and, in effect, subsidize those of us who own our homes. (You don’t hear politicians screaming how unfair that is.) Starving artists, shipbuilders and myriad others, such as Nobel Peace Prize winner and peanut farmer Jimmy Carter, pig out at the federal tax trough. Virtually any group which can muster a slick-suited lobbyist on K Street will soon share in politician’s largesse with our tax dollars.

This election season has been marked with some really interesting slogans about taxes and the economy, almost all of it from my own party, the Democrats. The usual suspects are involved; Daschle, Gebhardt, H. R. Clinton; in short, those politicos who have an automatic microphone and easy access to the press. Here’s what Mrs. Clinton said, echoing the party line:

The economy is in terrible shape. When we (my husband and I) were in the White House, our economy was strong and vibrant. Then, along came the “selected, not elected” Republican, Bush. Result? Both the stock market and the economy took a dive. That Republican tax cut for the rich is what caused both events.

It is surely true that the market is in the tank but is that a result of something George Bush did? And, if so, was it the tax cut? Wall Street fat-cats as well as Main Street investors simply love tax cuts and low interest rates. Each time one of those events occurs, the market responds by rising. It is surely true that the rich love tax cuts but the poor do not, at least not according to Mrs. Clinton and her type of Democrat. There are a million theories as to why the market is down. If I knew why, I’d be rich and not writing this column. Nobody knows for sure; Wall Street is not called The Big Casino for nothing. Wall Street odds are better than the crap tables of Vegas but only over the long term. Even then, when market analysts report that the market always benefits the long-term investor, they rarely, if ever, adjust their figures to account for inflation.

Now the idea that a tax cut benefits the rich is absolutely true. Of course, one must define “rich”. Does it mean high income such as a CEO’s salary or does it mean a high dollar value in assets from money earned and saved, such as in Frank Lautenberg’s case inherited from Daddy as in party icon Ted Kennedy’s case? In either case, how much is “rich”? Some folks think $100,000 per year is rich; surely a $1,000,000 a year income is rich but where is the actual point at which the scale tilts from poor to moderate to well-to-do to rich? Is a million in the bank rich? Or how about nothing much in the bank but a house valued today at a million dollar house bought long ago for $100,000? A hundred million in the bank is rich but, again, where is the tipping point? It depends doesn’t it?

The other fact about the rich and taxes is that the rich pay virtually all the taxes.

1. The top 1% of taxpayers pay 35% of all federal income taxes.

2. The top 5% of taxpayers pay 54% of all federal income taxes.

3. The top 50% of taxpayers pay 96% of all federal income tax.

If there’s a tax cut, i.e., a reduction in taxes paid, who in bloody Hell is going to get it? The lower half of all the taxpayers who pay virtually no taxes in the first instance? That’s not a tax cut; that’s a welfare payment. How can those who paid no taxes ever receive a cash benefit directly from a tax cut?

Nevertheless, my fellow Democrats insist that the “Bush tax cuts for the rich” were the cause, not a cause but the cause, of the federal budget deficit. Forget the pork to farmers and the 39th federal building in West Virginia named after Robert Byrd, It’s the tax cut, Stupid.

Okay, fellow Democrats; I agree. You’re right. What, then, must we propose to make the stock market rise again, bring the federal budget deficit into balance and energize the economy? Following Mrs. Clinton’s logic, we must:

RAISE TAXES.

Strange. I have yet to hear Mrs. Clinton or Daschle, Gebhardt, Levin, Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein or any candidate wage his or her political campaign based on that simple to understand principle. It is axiomatic that if the small Bush tax cut ruined our country’s economy, that raising taxes would surely return us to the heady days of Clintonian economics. And let’s do it in a big way: double taxes; pay off the federal deficit and put the rest of the money into Al Gore’s social security “lock-box” to assure the future benefits of all those grannies who can’t personally pay for their lobotomies. Surely this is fair and just. And let’s do it pronto.

Next time you hear any politician (e.g. see list above) or Hollywood moron (e.g. Sarandon, Streisand, Sheen, Baldwin) rant against the Bush tax cuts, ask yourself why, in the same breath, they don’t demand your taxes be raised. Don’t hold your breath.