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
' ---'