Amazingly, after all the bitterness

and division that occurred during the election, America is uniting.

No, it's not young George's

charisma that is uniting us, but a single, pervading issue that binds

young and old, liberal and conservative (except for extremists), those

with pale skin, dark skin and olive.

It's the tax cut.

With the economy wavering and

daily news of layoffs, there seems to be not only a growing support for

the idea of tax cuts, but also a growing impatience with the length of

the process required to put it in place.

I'm basing this on things I

hear from my friends, even the liberal Democratic ones, letters to the

editor, columns, talk show talk not just on conservative shows, and not

just from the hosts.

And the seeds of class envy

being sowed by Democratic Party leaders their strategy for keeping as

much money in Washington as possible don't seem to be taking root. I don't

hear many people out here among the great unwashed worrying about how

much the other guy gets. Let's just get on with it, seems to be the cry.

But the arguments against a

tax cut are still out there, and Dick Gephardt et al will be working as

hard as they can to prevent us from getting one. So in case you are one

of the few who is opposed or perhaps you're in favor but have the nagging,

guilty feeling that maybe you shouldn't be so selfish here are some of

the arguments and some points to ponder about those arguments.

1. A tax cut may put us in

danger of going back to deficit spending. It will reduce the surplus at

best, and possibly erase it altogether. Therefore, the more conservative

plan would be to sit on that surplus and wait for a rainy day.

In fighting against a tax cut

(even though he promised to fight for it) President Clinton was fond of

phrasing the argument in terms of how we "spend" the surplus:

Do we spend it on important things like Social Security or do we squander

it (actually I think Gore used that word quite often in his campaign)

on tax cuts?

First, even if a tax cut does

erode the surplus somewhat, returning the money to the people who earned

it is not squandering it. If you think about it, that concept should be

as insulting to you Democrats as it is to me. The pertinent question is:

Do you want to leave the money in Washington where politicians will use

it to buy votes, or do you want to return it to the people it belongs

to.

Second, there's no reason to

assume that a tax cut will cut into the surplus at all, if Congress exercises

some discipline and doesn't go hog wild on spending at the same time.

Following the Reagan tax cuts

back in the '80s, deficits went through the roof, which seems to support

the concern that the same would happen now. But the facts are clear: revenues

increased every year following the tax cuts, and the reason deficits increased

is because spending increased faster than revenues.

Our new senator, Zell Miller,

a Democrat, put it very well: "I thought I had seen it all. But when

I came to Washington last year I was not prepared for the shock of just

how matter-of-factly Congress ate into the surplus, gobbled it up indiscriminately

and without hesitation on both sides of the aisle. ... If we don't send

this overpayment of taxes back to those who paid it, much of it will be

frittered away. ..."

2. A tax cut won't really mean

much to each individual. It'll just be pocket change. Why not improve

services rather than cut taxes?

I don't know about you, but

if I get to keep 40 bucks a month that I've been sending to Washington,

it will help.

Bush says the average taxpayer

will pay $1,600 a year less than currently. Those who pay a lot more taxes

will have a much greater impact, and those who are paying very little

won't see that much.

There are Web sites where you

can go punch in your numbers and see how big your tax cut would be.

But there are benefits of a

tax cut that those numbers don't show.

The first thing I noticed after

the first Reagan tax cut went into effect was that my paycheck got bigger.

What was doubly exciting about that was that, although it was only about

$40 a month, it was $40 a month TAX FREE.

Think about that. If your employer

gives you a $40 a month raise, your paycheck only goes up $25 or so. Taxes

eat the rest. You don't have to pay taxes on a tax cut.

The second thing I noticed

was that when I did get an actual pay increase, the portion of that increase

that was eaten by taxes was less than before, and it took more pay raises

before I got bumped into a higher bracket.

Taking all those factors into

account, the actual effect of my $40 tax cut ended up being more like

$150 a month within a year or so.

For millions of Americans struggling

to make ends meet, it was the first time in their lives they could see

some daylight. I know because that's how it was for me.

Of course, what that translates

into is more money going into savings, more into investments, and more

being spent for goods and services, which translates into companies expanding,

more jobs, bigger pay increases for those who earn them.

And what does all that translate

into? More taxes being paid, that's what.

3. There is no 3. That's about

it as far as arguments against a tax cut, other than the ones about how

you should envy someone else because his tax cut is bigger than yours.

Bottom line: a tax cut means

people get to make their own decisions about what to do with more of the

money they earn, and those decisions inevitably improve the economy.

No wonder everybody's getting

on the bandwagon.