Jewish Post, Indianapolis, Marion County, 15 January 2003 — Page 6

NAT 2 January 15. 2003

Jewish Post & Opinion A response to President Bush’s proposed plan By RABBI DAVID SAPERSTEIN President Bush announced an economic stimulus plan that does little to stimulate the economy in the near term and largely ignores the millions of Americans who are in need. In a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago, the President said that he is worried about people who are unable to find work and vowed not to "forget the men and women who are struggling today." However, of the President's $674 billion dollar plan, only $98 billion would be spent to stimulate the economy this year, and more than half of the total cost would be spent ending the dividend tax, for which a majority of the benefits would go to the very rich. President Bush is correct that an economic stimulus plan is needed. But the President's plan does little to stimulate our economy now, when it is most needed, and little to help American families who have been hardest hit by the poor economy and who are engaged in a daily struggle to make ends meet. President Bush's plan does include a number of measures designed to help middle and low-income families. We welcome President Bush's proposals to reduce the "marriage penalty," increase the child tax credit from $600 to $1000 per child, and move the lowest income taxpayers down to the 10 percent tax bracket. We also enthusiastically support the President's $3,000 reemployment accounts, which would provide 1.2 million unemployed Americans with money to spend on job training, childcare, transportation, or relocation during their job search. However, these measures comprise less than one third of the cost of President Bush's plan. The centerpiece, and most expensive element, of the Bush plan is the elimination of taxes on corporate dividends. Although couched as a stimulus for the weak economy, this is actually an expensive, permanent change to the tax code that would put money into the hands of the richest Americas. Those with incomes over $1 million would receive the same tax benefits as the bottom 90 percent of all tax filers combined. Additionally, because its benefits would mostly go to the wealthy, who are more likely to save rather than spend tax rebates, the Congressional Research Service found that "using dividend tax reductions to stimulate the economy is unlikely to be very effective." The President also proposes accelerating the 2001 tax cuts that were scheduled to be phased in over the next several years. Accelerating these tax cuts would give approximately 70 percent of the benefit to the wealthiest 5 percent of taxpayers, and the bottom 80 percent of tax payers would receive approximately 7 percent of the benefit. Instead of tax breaks for the wealthy, a growing number of political and business leaders, including the influential Business Roundtable, have argued for directing money to lower- and middle-income taxpayers to generate more demand for goods and services. Eliminating the dividend tax and accelerating the 2001 tax cut rates ignores those American workers who are in desperate need of help. In November, the national unemployment rate reached 6 percent, the highest level since April 1994. Since January 2001 our economy has lost more than two million private sector jobs. Many of those two million Americans have been unable to find work. With long-term unemployment at its worst in 30 years, an alarming, and unacceptable, number of American families have been living without the means to provide basic necessities for their families. Any economic stimulus plan should effectively and immediately generate economic growth and jobs, target unmet needs, and be fair. However, President Bush's plan largely fails on all three of these counts. The enormous price of these tax cuts in terms of permanent lost revenue could threaten long-term growth and the health and integrity of a wide variety of federal programs that support Americans during times of economic crisis. In his speech the President called for "spending discipline in Washington D.C." He has set ceilings for this year's spending on domestic programs other than homeland security at the same level as last year's spending, a major policy shift that adminisContinucil on next pnge

Editor’s Chair

We are not aware of how many rabbis are serving as members of the boards of federations of our local Jewish communities, but it would seem logical that at least one rabbi of each division - Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform - should be on the board of every local federation. Also, since in many communities there are more than one rabbi in each division, the terms of service should be variable. This approach should long ago

have been adopted, and our Jewish communities would be far ahead in fulfilling the obligations that their responsibilities include. In some communities, depending perhaps on size, more than one rabbi of each denomination might be included on the board. The point is not democratic representation but more that the federation could expect additional Jewish creativity. In fhe Jong run, the community as a whole will be the beneficiary.

Maybe You’ll Agree

Scolding Joe In Sam Silver's column in this issue of the P-O, you'll notice that the Orthodox editor of the Algemeiner Journal has scolded Sen. Joseph Lieberman, DConn., who is on the brink of a campaign for president. Editor Gershon Jacobson is upset that Lieberman has called for Palestinian control of Judea and Samaria and for a Palestinian state, according to news reports. Jacobson says Lieberman ought to be speaking like the Orthodox Jew he is and stand for God's plan that Jews own all of Israel, not just part of it. What Lieberman has allegedly said instead is blasphemy, committed to gain some votes, according to Jacobson. We're no authority on halacha or what is blasphemy. But we remember being very nervous in our youth when a young Roman Catholic was running for president. We were afraid that

Kennedy guy would be representing the Vatican instead of Americans. Because a president's duty is to speak for all the people, not just those who share his religious faith. Lieberman was probably not in a position to fully speak his own mind when campaigning as a running mate to A1 Gore. Should he campaign for president, he'll have to speak for himself. We'll see how he does. We suspect a lot of Americans — especially non-Jews - will be weighing whether his expressed positions represent those held by his fellow Jews or the — perhaps different — interests of his fellow Americans in general. A person can speak honorably either way, but if his aim is to be elected, what he says might not always please Jews - Orthodox or otherwise. Maybe you'll agree. Ed Stattmann

How To Kill A Business In Ten Easy Steps

1. Don’t advertise. Just pretend everyt^ody knows what you have to offer. 2. Don’t advertise. Tell yourself you just don’t have the time to spend thinking about promoting your business. 3. Don’t advertise. Just assume everybody knows what you sell. 4. Don’t advertise. Convince yourself that you’ve been in business so long customers will automatically come to you. 5. Don’t advertise. Forget that there are new potential customers who would do business with you if they were urged to do so.

6. Don’t advertise. Forget that you have competition trying to attract your customers away from you. 7. Don’t advertise. Tell yourself it costs too much to advertise and that you don’t get enough out of it. 8. Don’t advertise. Overlook the fact that advertising is an investment in selling — not an expense. 9. Don’t advertise. Be sure not provide an adequate advertising budget for business. 10. Don’t advertise. Forget that you have to keep reminding your estate lished customers that you appreciate their business.

You decide... it's your business in good times or bad.