President Bush has just announced a 10-year, $674 billion economic stimulus plan, of which… President Bush has just announced a 10-year, $674 billion economic stimulus plan, of which $670 billion will come in the form of tax cuts. Because taxation is based on income, most of these cuts will benefit the rich.

Individual tax rates will be lowered and rebates will be sent to some 34 million mid- to low-income parents in the form of per-child checks. These measures will have some impact on the poor and middle class, true, but the bulk of the money will be a result of the abolition of federal taxes on stock dividends. Poor people don’t generally have much income from stock dividends.

Republicans say that since the rich pay the most in taxes, it’s only fair they get the greatest relief. Democrats argue that the poor are the least equipped to handle financial burden and need relief the most.

The White House makes the claim that middle-class families will benefit from the cuts. It’s hard to see how, on any significant level. Sure, an extra $400 per child might be awfully nice come vacation time, but it won’t do much of anything for that kid once he or she gets sick, if Mom and Dad don’t have insurance.

Compared to most first-world countries, our taxes are amazingly low. Of course, we also have an epidemic of people without health care and intelligent people denied proper education because they can’t afford it.

Everyone moans about paying taxes because, unlike most other developed nations, we don’t see any real, individual benefits from the money that vanishes from our paychecks each week. In highly taxed countries where everyone has access to quality healthcare, it’s not a rich versus poor issue – healthcare is just as free to the rich as it is to the poor.

Rather than putting a little bit of money back in everyone’s pockets – these cuts aren’t going to make billionaires out of millionaires nor will they bring anyone out of poverty – why not pool our resources and chip away at America’s existing social problems?

Of course, the theory is that by putting that money into Joe American’s pockets, we’ll encourage him to go out and spend, spend, spend, thus revitalizing the flagging economy. In uncertain times such as these, doesn’t it seem perhaps more likely he’ll squirrel it away against even harder times? Even if he does spend it, we can’t be sure on what – and it’s unlikely it’ll be on social aid and reform.

All of this begs the real question, however. If we cut taxes, how on earth are we going to finance a costly war on Iraq? Where will that money come from? If we are truly girding for conflict, it seems taxes should be raised, not lowered.

But what president wants to raise taxes when he’s facing re-election?