The politics of taxes. House Republicans last week rammed through an economic "stimulus" package so grotesque that even treasury secretary Paul O’Neill suggested it was mainly for show. If that’s the case, then you’d have to rate this one NC-17. Not content with merely cutting corporate taxes, the Republicans would refund enormous amounts of money in back tax payments to companies such as IBM ($1.4 billion) and General Motors (more than $800 million). Writing in the American Prospect, Robert McIntyre estimated that the bill — which would also cut the capital-gains tax and accelerate previously approved tax cuts for the rich — would cost some $212 billion over the next three years.

But even if the Senate, as expected, forces the House to go along with a more equitable compromise, there will still be some serious budget and tax issues to be dealt with. While no one wants to go back to talking about Al Gore’s "lock box," the tax cut that President Bush guided through Congress earlier this year remains an irresponsible piece of legislation that rewards rich campaign contributors at the expense of our future.

As Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has pointed out on numerous occasions, Bush’s claim that he was merely seeking to return "our money" was — to put it bluntly — a lie. In fact, the government should have invested budget surpluses in Social Security and Medicare, building up a substantial reserve so that later in the century, when baby boomers are in full retirement mode, they’ll be able to receive the benefits they’ve been promised.

In a piece for the New Republic earlier this year, Krugman showed in devastating detail that Bush and his minions were lying about the extent of the tax cut, lying about the size of the surplus, and lying about the fiscal health of Social Security and Medicare. "No previous administration has tried to sell its economic plans on such false pretenses," he wrote. (Krugman expanded on his critique in a book titled Fuzzy Math: The Essential Guide to the Bush Tax Plan, published by W.W. Norton.)

With recession at hand and the country at war, the Bush tax cut looks even worse now than it did when it passed.

Gay and lesbian equality. One of the most significant differences between us and the Taliban is our cultural attitude toward homosexuality. The Taliban likes to topple stone walls on top of gay men, crushing them to death. Although Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson might think that’s a great idea, most of us do not.

Nevertheless, we’ve still got a long way to go. Consider what happened in the US military following the terrorist attacks. The Navy issued a "stop-loss" order, preventing some 10,500 members from being discharged — but keeping in place the ludicrous "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, meaning that lesbians and gay men can still be kicked out, to the detriment of national security. Then there was the bomb labeled highjack this fags, a nasty little bit of homophobia as well as an affront to all who care about the proper use of commas.

Lesbians and gay men continue to exist in legal and cultural limbo in this country, accepted as fully equal members of society more than ever, yet still somewhere short of the promised land.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay and lesbian advocacy group, 2001 employers — including more than half of the Fortune 500 companies — now have nondiscrimination policies regarding sexual orientation, an increase of 17 percent over the previous year. The number of Fortune 500 companies offering domestic-partnership benefits rose from 61 in 1998 to 145 in 2001. Incredibly, the Long Beach, California, office of the Salvation Army, whose national policy of discriminating against gays became briefly notorious during the debate over government aid to faith-based programs, recently decided to grant health-care benefits to domestic partners.

Corporate America, in other words, is doing the right thing because of its own economic self-interest. Yet, while private businesses and organizations move ahead, government at various levels continues to tie itself up in knots. Earlier this year, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts that could lead to same-sex marriage or Vermont-style civil unions. Yet right-wing activists have begun a campaign for a state constitutional amendment that would not only ban such unions, but would endanger domestic-partnership benefits as well. This past Tuesday, five cities across the country voted on referendums either to roll back or to prevent benefits for gay and lesbian couples. Such attitudes are reflected on the street as well: according to FBI statistics, even as overall crime rates are declining, reported hate crimes against gays and lesbians are up by nearly one percent.

Human Rights Campaign spokesman David Smith concedes that the war against terrorism may have temporarily placed the gay agenda on the back burner. But he’s hopeful that stories such as that of Mark Bingham, the gay man who helped overpower the terrorists on the jetliner that crashed outside Pittsburgh, and of the problems some lesbians and gays have had in collecting survivor benefits, will create a powerful impression.

"Our struggle," he explains, "is a real human effort to protect our families."

Global warming. Last Friday, the Associated Press moved a story that began like this: "Congress is being urged to enact mandatory limits on greenhouse gases linked to global warming so regulators and companies alike can plan ahead with certainty. Environmental officials and political leaders from states as diverse as ..."

Global warming is still an issue? Who knew?

In fact, if global warming was important (if tedious) before September 11, it’s surely important today as well. Moreover, even though some scientists continue to argue that human activities have little or nothing to do with climate change (see "Don’t Quote Me," News and Features, August 3), there are good reasons to proceed as though the problem is real. Among other things, by taking global warming seriously, we can also reduce our dependence on Middle East oil — the single biggest factor in such dangerous policies as our support for the corrupt royal family of Saudi Arabia.

For half a century, the United States has lurched from one misadventure to another in the Middle East, all in service to our need for oil. Our meddling in Iran caused a crisis that’s been going on for more than 20 years. Our ill-advised support for Iraq led directly to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 — an invasion that, in turn, led to the Gulf War. Even our staunch support for Israel, our only real ally in the region, has been undermined by our appetite for oil — witness Israel’s exclusion from the squishy coalition that’s backing us, sort of, in the war against terrorism. As the first President Bush would say, don’t want to offend our Arab partners. Wouldn’t be prudent.

Environmentally friendly energy sources would not only ease global warming, they would also free us from the need for sleazy alliances in the Middle East. In an October 29 op-ed piece for the New York Times, University of Wisconsin environmentalist Rob Nixon called for more research into fuel-efficient cars and alternative energy sources such as wind, waves, biomass, and solar power. Noting that the US spends $56 billion a year on Middle Eastern oil and another $25 billion on military operations in that region, Nixon wrote, "Oil continues to be a major source both of America’s strategic vulnerability and of its reputation as a bully, in the Islamic world and beyond."

By refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming last summer, the Bush administration cemented its reputation for unilateral arrogance. Since then, it has discovered the importance of interconnectedness. Re-engaging with the world on climate change would be good not just for the world, but for our own security as well.

Dan Kennedy can be reached at dkennedy[a]phx.com