Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 21, 1996)
Financial quandary Filing taxes shouldn’t become a goal in life Recently, I’ve been having horrible nightmares that I’m going to die before I accomplish my two goals in life: Conducting the Boston Symphony Orchestra with socks on my ears and figuring out my taxes. The first goal is at least plausible, but I’m afraid the latter is a lost cause. I’m not the brightest man in the world when it comes to calculating numbers. I have trouble counting my testicles and getting the same number twice. With this in mind, it’s amazing that the government thinks I’ll be able to file my taxes on my own. I never have been able to understand those confusing tax forms; I might as well be looking at ancient Babylonian rap lyrics. Fortunately for me, salvation lies ahead. This just so happens to be the election year of the flat tax, and almost every candidate is in favor of this overdue idea. I was and am baffled by the current tax system, so it’s probably wise that I don’t try to grasp the ideas behind this new one. I don’t know whom it helps or whom it sticks it to. Quite frankly, I don’t give a hoot. All I know is that I’ve heard that it is easier, which, coincidentally, is the main criterion I look for in a candidate’s agenda: “And furthermore, I will make things easier for Steve.” As I understand it, the proposed flat-tax plan would require that everyone pay the government a flat fee of 93.7 percent of their yearly income. Now that’s what I call simple. (Editor’s note: The plan also has provisions that limit the number of people Hillary Clinton can fire for no reason to 37 a month. Also, I have every reason to believe that Steve Willey “If the IRS calls, tell them you are <about to sneeze. Steve is dating a Caribou.) Unfortunately for me, the proposed tax plan will not take effect until well after this year’s taxes are due. What complicates matters with my taxes is that I have two jobs; moreover, I was recently made aware that I cannot claim “kitty litter” as an exemption. Will it never end? * The only person who could sort out my financial fiasco was a tax guy at the Internal Revenue Service. With crossed fingers and a picture of my Caribou, I called this man. I took the liberty of taping our phone conversation and am includ ing the actual transcript. Steve: (Tallying figures) “Let’s see, I made about $13,000 last year and...” Tax Guy: “That’ll be fine, send that in.” Steve: (Surprised) “Well, I - er - spent some of it.” Tax Guy: (Also surprised) “You what? How much is left?” Steve: (Sobbing) “31 cents .” Tax Guy: (also sobbing) “Your parents should be beaten with a Shovel!” ~ That’s pretty much the extent of the conversation, although I have left out a few profanities to avoid any nasty “Letters to the Editor.” Now 31 cents may not seem like a lot, but when you’re a student, particularly a fat one, you need all you can get. My father, who is much better with numbers than I am, sent me a pamphlet he had written offering helpful hints on how to receive a larger tax return. For example, my father suggests that the easiest method of getting a larger return is to simply not file your taxes at all. He recommends that you “blender” your W-2s into your dog’s food and never speak of them again. If the IRS calls, tell them you are “about to sneeze,” and then proceed to pant into the phone without ever sneezing. “The suspense will soon bore the agents, and they will leave you alone for a week at which point the process must be repeated.” It’s worth a shot, I guess. If I do decide to file, (which I’m leaving up to whether or not I see my shadow tomorrow morning) chances are it won’t be too accurate. I just hope the IRS realizes that I’m an idiot and doesn’t send me to the County-City Building again. I’m giving up on trying to figure my taxes out. I nave other goals that are easier than understanding where 93.7 percent of my yearly income goes. Like conducting an orchestra with socks on my ears for example, now that’s what I call easy. Willey Is a Jailor ag-JoaraaUsm major aad a Dally Nebraska! colamalst. Battlefield Americans work at tearing down opponents Some nights ago, as I watched the TV before going to bed, I noticed how few positive things there were to find. I started watching Tempestt’s talk show, where a teen age girl was shouting at her ex-best friend and accusing the friend of stealing both her prom gown and the love of her boyfriend, besides ruining her life in general. I got fed up rather soon and switched to channel 15, where Rush Limbaugh industriously made fun of the Democrats. I thought that I could at least count on Fox, but the first thing I saw on the channel 42 was an ad where the producers of a Toyota sport-utility vehicle tried to prove in millions of ways that Jeep was a lousy car. Because I don’t have cable, I drew the conclusion that in Ameri can media the best way to sell your products and yourself is not to stress your own superior qualities but to reveal and take advantage of the weaknesses of the counterpart. An excellent example of the same philosophy are the coming presiden tial elections, where the art of defamation and mockery approaches perfection. The election campaigns of this country have long been an endless source of astonishment and amusement to many Europeans. Candidates often seem to be prima rily better alternatives to the wrong values represented by their oppo nents; only secondarily, men who have their own personality and genuine ideas. The history of the United States has repeated the same pattern. The first enemy the United States had to fight was, of course. Great Britain. As a matter of fact, the very reason for the birth of the United States was the need to resist the evil coming from the Old World. After Great Veera Supinen "... in American media the best way to sell your products and yourself is not to stress your own superior qualities but to reveal and take advantage of the weaknesses of the counterpart. ” Britain, the United States found enemies elsewhere, whether they were Indian savages, Mexicans, or the decadence of the eastern coast compared to the pure and vast wilderness of the West. Isolationist foreign policy and the urge to stand out from Europe were the basis on which the young and disintegrated country built its identity. After the second World War, the United States found a perfect enemy in the Soviet empire. The resistance of communism both outside and inside America became the main ideological mission for the United States. During the Cold War, the United States portrayed everything the Soviet Union was not, the land ol freedom, plenty and happiness. At that time, ‘American’ was an adjective symbolizing all possible virtues, and similarly, accusing someone of being anti-American was the worst imaginable insult. Now the Soviet system has collapsed and hand in hand with it much of the self-image of the United States. The Cold War is over, and the United States, as the most powerful nation in the world, has no enemy on which it could reflect its own cultural ideology and values. Surely there are Iraq and China, but these threats are too insignificant to provide a counterpart dangerous enough on the mental level of the society. The world of popular culture and mass media often is seen as the new frontier, the only dimension in which the United States can still continue its westward expansion, an expan sion that creates the vital safety valve for the nation suffering from various internal problems. But the rest of the world is soon conquered and the unifying American mass media already have invaded once impregnable Eastern Europe and Asia. The process of Americaniza tion will be completed in the coming decades, and what will happen to the original America then? Where in the future will the United States find the opposite power it has always had? TV producers already seem to know the answer. Turn any channel on, and if you don’t find people mocking each other, you will surely find brave Americans struggling either against their own evil govern ment, intelligent computers or creatures from the outer space. Saplaea b a jailor hbtory aid Ameri ca! Stidies major aad a Dally Nebraska! coiamabt Buchanan changes opinion on tariffs When I was a junior in high school, I had the same European history teacher my brother had five years before. Jeffrey, ever organized, had kept copies of each weekly quiz Mr. Shields had administered. One week, quiz in hand and thinking I could trap my teacher, I challenged him, saying, “Do you know that you are asking the very same questions this year that you asked five years ago?” He smiled a half smile and replied, “History hasn’t changed.” I thought of Mr. Shields this week as I paged through my old friend Pat Buchanan’s superb memoir, “Right from the Begin ning,” written in 1988. With his showing in Louisiana and Iowa, Pat has eclipsed Ross Perot to become America’s leading advocate of trade protectionism. This is not the same Pat Buchanan I knew and worked with in the Reagan White House. That PJB was a fervent (well, Pat is always fervent) free trader. Here’s how Pat put it in his book: “In the fight to maintain open markets, worldwide, a strong president, again, is indispensable. Congress, com posed of 535 moving parts, is incapable of resisting the con certed pressures of American corporations and unions. rvmvmg uit ^itai aumiuui achievements of the 20th century is free Asia, democratic and capitalists, which arose out of the ashes of World War II and Korea. Hundreds of millions of the most capable and energetic people in the world are prospering, on the side of freedom, because of the bravery of American soldiers.... To squander then in an absurd ‘trade war’ because we cannot compete with Korean cars or Japanese computer chips would be an act of almost terminal stupidity for the West.” Well said, Pat! But what happened? Today, Pat argues that raising tariffs is the way to go to protect American jobs. Has history changed? Buchanan says he’ll be a tough negotiator on trade matters—but will he cut off America’s nose to spite our face? Today, Pat denies that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. Professor William Lash, director of the International Law Program at George Mason University, says, “There is no thinking economist on either side of the aisle who does not think that is true.” How did it have that effect? Well, we imposed tariffs on imports. That permitted domestic producers to raise their prices in turn. They did so. Everything— not just inports—thus became more expensive for consumers. Mona Charen “Patrick Buchanan is the only Republican candidate who is running on a platform of higher taxes. ” That’s why economists refer to tariffs as just another form of tax. Patrick Buchanan is the only Republican candidate who is running on a platform of higher taxes. (In his book, Buchanan said, “No new federal taxes should be imposed. The nearly 20 percent of gross national product the federal government collects in revenue is enough government.”) After we imposed Smoot Hawley, our trading partners retaliated with tariffs of their own, making it impossible for us to sell our goods overseas. Everyone got progressively poorer, especially the Germans, with results that need no recapitu lation. Though Pat likes to portray a “tough” stance on trade as “conservatism of the heart,” it is really “conservatism of the foolish” or no conservatism at all. Conservatives oppose big government. Yet to inpose tariffs on certain goods, Buchanan would have bureaucrats in Washington deciding which domestic industries to favor and which to disfavor. How? Well, if computer company A imports its computer screens from Japan and company B imports them from Malaysia, Buchanan would have government decide which company will prosper and which will not. Indeed, that would be true of whole industries. There is another major political figure who thinks government should pick winners and losers in the marketplace. His name is Bill Clinton (he favors targeted investment in high-tech industries). But at least Clinton is not so far to the left as to endorse protectionism. You won’t hear this from Buchanan, but the United States is the world’s leading exporter. We sell the world airplanes, electronics, computers, medical services and equipment, and agricultural products, among many other things. At least 14 million U.S. jobs depend directly on exports. Protectionism, especially in the hands of such an articulate spokesman as Buchanan, is enticing. But it is dangerous in the extreme. Economic prosper ity, like freedom, is not free. It must be vigilantly defended. BE OUR GUEST The Daily Nebraskan will present a guest columnist each Monday. Writers from the university and community are welcome. Contact Doug Peters c/o the Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St., Lincoln, NE 68588, or by phone at (402) 472-1782. You headin' off to pin a militia? J Naw. Pat Buchanans C|W r staft- i ' ---'