For politicians, tax cut pandering has lost its magic

By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist, 2/8/2000

n this age of new politics, voters show signs of demanding some old-fashioned arithmetic: numbers that add up. Senator John McCain of Arizona not only beat Governor George W. Bush of Texas in last week's New Hampshire primary; he also beat the notion that today's voters are so fixated on tax cuts that they don't remember simple math.

In those heady pre-New Hampshire primary days, the Bush campaign announced a $483 billion tax cut proposal. It was all about giving money back to the taxpayers, with little emphasis on shoring up Social Security or reducing the national debt. MIT economist Paul Krugman, who also writes for The New York Times, last week put the real cost of the Bush tax cut at a stunning $1.3 trillion and suggested that ''it's time he had a little chat with his numbers guys.'' (The candidate's father, former president George Bush, might once have called that kind of promised giveback ''voodoo economics,'' but that was before the elder Bush learned the thrill and chill of ''Read my lips, no new taxes.'')

Whether the George W. Bush tax cut proposal is $483 billion or more than $1 trillion, it didn't tempt New Hampshire's famously tax-shy voters. The power of McCain's personality and his message of campaign finance reform were critical to his victory there. But the voters also accepted his more modest tax-cutting plan, with its emphasis on priorities like Social Security.

If Bush lost the tax debate in New Hampshire, where does that leave it everywhere else?

Senator John F. Kerry, who supports Vice President Al Gore, says: ''John McCain has it right. You need some investment, some tax cuts, that go to people who deserve them.''

Kerry says McCain understands what the Republican establishment still doesn't quite get: ''The American voter has smartened up. You can't pander to them on taxes anymore.''

But that doesn't mean someone won't try.

Right here in Massachusetts, Governor Cellucci is pushing a plan to cut the income tax to 5 percent.

Incredibly, Cellucci said he is sticking with the plan even after the news that the cost of the Big Dig is expected to jump $1.4 billion, to $12.2 billion. He would rather raise tolls so he can give back tax money.

At a child-care education center in Weymouth yesterday, Kerry equated the amount of money it would need to give every child in Massachusetts a quality education with the amount Cellucci is proposing to give back in taxes - roughly $1.1 billion.

John Brockelman, executive director of the Massachusetts Republican Party, insists that he is ''convinced, absolutely'' that Massachusetts voters want what Cellucci is determined to give them - $1.64 a day for a family of four.

As proof of that, he points to two old polls and the fact that Bill Clinton called for a $350 million tax cut in his recent State of the Union Message. ''We know that Bill Clinton is one of those politicians who poll on a daily basis,'' says Brockelman, ''and if he didn't think people wanted a tax cut, he wouldn't have asked for one.''

Ultimately, the tax cut debate in Masschusetts is a microcosm of the larger national debate.

How much should we spend, how much should we save, and how much do we really expect back?

Are we willing to put our money where we say our priorities are - in education, technology, and infrastructure?

What do we think is worthy of public investment? Nationally, that means deciding how much to commit to shoring up Medicare and Social Security. Locally, it could mean choosing between plugging the gap for a bankrupt HMO or building a new ballpark.

For the first time in a long while, could Democrats and Republicans end up somewhere near the same place when it comes to tax cut philosophy? Post-New Hampshire, and before South Carolina votes, that is an intriguing possibility.

With the strong economy comes security and a sense that this is a good time to invest in the future. Americans also have less to be angry about when it comes to their tax dollars. Washington is doing a better job of balancing the budget and giving tax credits and cuts whenever possible.

We are also more sophisticated when it comes to finance. We know the drag of credit and debt on our family budgets. We know that in order to make money, you have to invest money and that you can't invest it if you spend it or give it away.

Very simply, we know that if you are running a household or a country, the numbers have to add up.

Joan Vennochi is a Globe columnist.