Who Deserves a Break Today?
by Tom Granger

What could possibly be wrong with the philosophy behind President Bush's proposed income tax cut, his plan to give most of the tax breaks to the wealthy? After all, they're the ones that pay the most in income taxes. And besides, it's not like the proposed income tax cut provides relief for relatively unearned forms of wealth, such as inheritances and capital gains.

So what's the problem? Don't ask the economists, or the welfare recipients, or the politicians. Ask the kids growing up in Compton, or the South Bronx, or Cabrini Green.

President Bush's seemingly straightforward tax plan, as well as his understanding of wealth distribution in America in general, stands on the old conservative assumption that "the haves" deserve to have, and that the "have nots" are themselves solely responsible for their economic misery. Obviously though, there are a people who begin life worse off and with fewer opportunities than others. The child of a single mother residing in a rural trailer park just doesn't have access to the same resources and supportive environment available to someone like the child of George Soros.

When confronted, conservatives will counter in one of two ways. First, they might provide examples of any number of people who rose from humble beginnings, who "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps," to become great men or women. The second, and more pervasive, rejoinder is something along the lines of "I am not to blame for the fact that some people are poor. More than likely, they are poor because they do not wish to work. Consequently, it is not my responsibility to rectify their plight."

Only someone who is flat on his back to begin with need hoist himself up by way of bootstraps. Unless everyone begins life from a supine position, then the field is indeed slanted. As to assigning blame for the tilted terrain, impassioned theories from both the right and left camps abound. Yet the key to finding common ground and progress lies not in hunting down the guilty parties, but rather in exonerating the innocent: the children of the poor.

A runner who must begin a race far behind the rest of the pack is not being given a fair start. Without a fair start, the runner’s chances of winning, or even being competitive in the race, are slim. There are, of course, those who feel that life is not meant to be fair, and that we must make do with the hand we're dealt. But to abandon fairness as a guiding principle in economics has some obvious and dire consequences. Suffice it to say that a runner who knows he's being unfairly handicapped in a race will likely abandon the rules — will trip, tackle or shoot the other racers — in an effort to win.

But what is it specifically about being a poor child in America that puts him or her at a considerable distance behind the pack? Easy. A poor child will live in and around other poor people. His parents, siblings, neighbors, friends and classmates will influence the child's attitudes toward the world around him. Because his community is poor, their experiences will likely have caused them to conclude that hard work doesn't pay and that the system is unjust. The child may know of respected people in his community who make a good living in black market trades like drug dealing or prostitution. The child will probably be unsupervised for much of the day because both parents work but can't afford childcare.

An impoverished kid may be pressured to quit school to contribute to the household income. The odds that a poor kid will have adequate place, resources and time to study are low. Schools in poor areas are inferior in almost every measurable category — facilities, classroom environment, teacher-student ratios and extracurricular activities. Positive recreational opportunities for poor children are usually lacking. The list goes on, and the cycle of poverty continues. Without being given a fair start, a good job is probably unattainable; parents without a good job are often unable to provide their children with a proper start.

The bleak prospects for poor children, then — undeserved and unjust — demand improvement.

Calls for a reliance on the private sector for a solution fail to appreciate that private enterprise is motivated by self-interest. Although investment in a poor area could potentially benefit a private investor (thus better qualified future employees), the benefits could also just as easily accrue to the private investor's competitors. Tax write-offs for charitable contributions are apt to result in an abundance of charitable organizations with different agendas and philosophies working disjointedly.

A concerted effort on a grand scale is needed. The only option is for that much maligned organization known as government to take the lead.

The answer then is simple, if anathema to some — greater taxes to fund government programs for poor children. Give poor children brand new schools with the latest technology and resources. Pay teachers in poor areas lucrative salaries and cut teacher student ratios to 1 to 10. Provide a new computer to every poor child and build huge new community centers that offer daycare, places for kids to study, as well as recreational facilities and programs.

Aside from the usual knee-jerk opposition to new taxes and to new government programs — especially those for the poor — there will probably be concern that this proposal means greater expenditure in poor areas than in a taxpayer's own community for the benefit of a taxpayer's own children. It does.

The idea is to level the playing field, to build an economic system that truly affords equal opportunity for all — that creates a meritocracy. If this is something we want, then more money must be invested where there is less. Ten feet of rope is sufficient to pull a child from a 10-foot hole, but that same length of rope is of little aid to the child in a 50-foot hole.

The Bush income tax cut assumes close to a $2 trillion surplus, meaning that there will be $2 trillion more over the next ten years than is "needed." Clearly, though, more money "needs" to be invested in poor children to give them a real and fair shot at economic success. And while there is much debate as to whether the wealthy deserve an income tax break, there can be no debate as to whether poor children deserve everything that comes with being born poor in America.

E-mail Tom Granger at tomgranger at mindspring dot com.