~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My name is Tracy Saboe. I am married. My wife and I make a combined income of around $25,000 a year. I believe this places us squarely in the lower middle class, and I just want to let you know that cutting taxes helps the poor people too. As you know The House recently passed several bills that would speed up the timetable on parts of Bush's Tax cut from 2010 to 2003. I think you should let the Senate Vote on these bills. I want the Bills to pass. And I am one of your constituents. So certainly you should let the Senate at least vote on all of the following House Proposals.

Immediately drop each of the top four individual income tax rates to the levels currently scheduled to be in place in 2010. (I'm not rich -- by any monetary means. But someday through Hard Work, and ingenuity, perhaps I could become rich someday, but that's difficult when every time I move up in the tax bracket a bigger chunk of my money is taken away. Plus if rich people keep more of their money, they buy more things helping to create jobs.)

Immediately increase the child tax credit to $1,000 per child, the level scheduled to be in effect in 2010. (Mr. Senator, my wife and I don't have kids yet, but perhaps we'd be able to afford to have kids if there were a bigger Child Tax Credit. We are responsible Americans waiting to have kids until we can afford to care for them properly.)

Immediately expand the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples filing jointly to twice the size of the 15 percent bracket for single filers, and immediately increase the size of the standard deduction for married couples filing jointly to exactly double that available for single filers. These two provisions would eliminate the marriage penalty currently incurred by many couples. (This would help us greatly now. 2nd, My wife and I shouldn't be penalized because we're being responsible adults and waiting to have children so any child we have will have a stable home.)

Immediately increase the width of the 10 percent income tax bracket to $14,000 of income for married couples filing jointly and $7,000 for single taxpayers. It would also index the 10 percent tax bracket for inflation beginning immediately. (This wouldn't immediately help me, but it seems like it would make it easier for people in poverty to get out of it, if they were able to make more money before they got pushed up into the next tax bracket.)

1. Lower taxes will boost the economy.
2. The Government doesn't use the money it already has wisely.
3. It's an affront to Democracy to not allow the entire Senate to vote.

Their are a number of reasons why lowering taxes is a good thing. First of all, if corporations weren't taxed so much, they'd be able to sell their products to the general public at much cheaper prices. Everybody would then save money purchasing basic goods and services, and would perhaps purchase more goods or even more luxury type items. If people purchase more goods and services then they normally do because prices are cheaper, it will actually make businesses more profitable, and so you'll have more income to tax with that lower tax. Who knows? Perhaps the income to the federal government won't shrink at all? A 5% tax on $200 is the same amount to the government as 10% tax on $100. There is history to back this. When Kennedy lowered taxes, the economy boomed. When Reagan lowered taxes the government doubled its budget. If the government just hadn't tripled its expenditures, we'd all be in good shape now.

2nd: If personal income tax were lowered, people would be more likely to work hard (because they get to keep more of their money.) and people would spend more money, again boosting business incomes. Because there are more people purchasing stuff, employers would need to employ more people, so you'd increase the number of taxpaying citizens, and the income of those citizens.
 

One reason I believe you are misguided Mr. Senator is because you don't see all the implications. Lower taxes would eventually mean higher amounts of income and revenue for you to tax. You wouldn't lose all of that money you think the government will lose. You would just lose some.

My 2nd point: Why does the government give continuous grant money to huge, already profitable corporations like McDonalds, IBM, Campbell's, and General Motors. If you're worried about a budget deficit, why not just cut costs and get rid of this. Fascism has been defined as, "The government choosing who wins and looses, instead of letting the market decide." If McDonalds can make a profit selling burgers overseas, let them make profits without an annual salary from the American taxpayers. I'm sure McDonalds would be more then happy to just keep the money it already has instead of paying the government taxes and then getting it back. It's been estimated that only about 30% of money paid to the government actually gets to the people it is supposed to help because the government needs to pay all those people in between. So instead of having high corporate taxes on McDonalds, and then giving it back a small percentage of that Tax in the form of government grants, why not just cut taxes for everybody straight across the board. This will increase competition in the marketplace and make it easier for new companies to make it because their small profit margins won't be eaten up by corporate taxes.

Why did the federal Government Give airlines $15 Billion Dollars last year -- And now the Airlines are having more trouble, and they're asking for money again. Why did you give $7.5 Billion to the insurance industry? If they're having trouble, tell them to cut costs, and let them compete with each other like every other legitimate business needs to do. Stop subsidizing Amtrak with $2 Billion a year. Stop subsidizing The American Society of Travel Agent Services, General Electric, Ernest & Gallo Winery (There are many people in this country who don't believe in drinking. It's against their religion. It's not fair to those people to use their tax money to help fund a winery), and the California Raisin Board. There are 100 corporate welfare programs that cost us, the taxpayers, over $81 Billion annually and yet you say government can't afford to speed up a paltry tax cut that's already law, from 2010 to 2003. Lower taxes and less government welfare will improve competition so you won't have to spend even more money breaking up monopolies with antitrust lawsuits.

Why do we keep giving over $61 Billion in Farm Subsidies every year. Why don't we make them figure out how to make a profitable business on their own through the use of ingenuity, hard work, and technology. The Democrats are continually talking about equalizing the distribution of wealth. So why do billionaires like Ted Turner, David Rockefeller, And other rich people, get several hundred thousand dollars a year just because they were rich enough to purchase farmland. Democrats constantly claim that Tax cuts only make rich people richer. Well, then lets stop giving rich people more money to make them richer, let them get richer on their own, and cut everyone's taxes. There is an easy way for you to save 61 Billion Dollars. (And I'm sure Representative Doug Ose (R-Cal), former Senator Bob Dole and basketball Great Scotty Pippen wouldn't mind not getting their 5 year $100,000 dollar grant, if it meant they could keep more of the other money they make. Now you have funds to make a 60 Billion Dollar Tax Cut! (BTW. What happened to the Freedom Farm Bill of 1996?)

Mr. Senator, this government doesn't have budget crises. It has a spending crisis. If the government is truly running out of money, let's make cuts from the $81 Billion spent on Corporate Welfare, or the $61 Billion spent on Farm Subsidies.

Farm Subsidies also hurt developing countries. Agriculture is a poor country's start to improving its economy. But it can't trade with the US, because we put artificial price controls and subsidizing farmers' profits. We keep giving billions of dollars in aid to many third world countries. Even Afghanistan until recently! But most of that money only ever gets seen by dictatorial governments, and never helps the people of those countries anyway. We can help these countries more by instead of giving them foreign welfare, give them the chance to compete fairly with American Farmers (You do believe in fairness right, Mr. Senator?) How about we decrease both Farm Subsidies, and Foreign Welfare. It would sure be a cheaper way for us to help out developing countries. And it would be cheaper for us too!

Also, why do you continually say we don't have money for tax cuts, while at the same time you raise your own wage. Mr. Senator, you weren't elected, so you could raise your pay another $5,000, over and above the already close to $200,000 that you already make annually. You were elected as a public servant to work for South Dakotans. South Dakotans want lower federal taxes, (Or at least I do). The Democratic Party talks about how they want to more equalize the distribution of wealth. Instead of making yourselves richer, why don't you cut our taxes. Don't talk about making sacrifices for the war effort, if your not willing to do the same.

My Third point: If the House passed these bills that increase the speed of Bush's proposed tax cuts from 2010 to 2003. I think it's only fair you let the Senate at least vote on it. I wouldn't be a patriotic believer in Democracy if I didn't think that your not letting the Senate Vote on these speed-ups was wrong. All of the States should be able to have their say in the Senate; not just the state who holds the senate majority leader.

South Dakotans want lower taxes. Let's lower them now.

Sioux Falls, SD