Molly Ivins, Hellraiser

Molly Ivins, syndicated columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, good ol' Texas girl, witty political pundit, former co-editor of the Texas Observer, three-time Pulitzer Prize finalist and author of the bestselling 'Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She?' and with Lou Dubose, 'Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush,' has a new book out. 'Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush's America,' also written with Dubose, outlines the underreported goings-on of the Bush administration, ultimately drawing the connections between public policy and people's lives.

On a sweeping book tour to promote 'Bushwhacked,' we caught up with her earlier this week during a quick hotel respite in Seattle. Despite a grueling schedule, Ivins remains positive, full of humor, and always an inspiration.

What's been the response to your tour for Bushwhacked?

MI: Every single venue has been absolutely jammed. People are really hungry to hear someone more or less stand up and say, 'This emperor isn't wearing any clothes.'

You say in your intro that if only people had read 'Shrub,' released before the 2000 presidential election, all this -- this current political situation -- never would have happened. Is Jean Dixon's job threatened by your ability to predict the future?

MI: No. (laughing.) A great question. I think she's safe.

You've often said that Texas is a laboratory for bad government. In your book, you note that Bush left Texas with tax cuts for the rich that left the state unable to provide basic services, writing, "Those of us who knew the president when he was governor of a low tax, low service, no regulation state are very seriously not amazed by what he has done in Washington." Welcome to USA 2003. What would you expect next?

MI: I think a lot of political commentators were surprised Bush started governing so far to the right. We felt that was not implied by the 2000 campaign. He's been coming down hard ever since. It does seem clear that they are out to fundamentally alter the course we've been on, rolling it back to what I suspect is beyond the New Deal -- to before that. They seem to be quite serious about ultimately getting rid of the progressive income tax entirely, and also Social Security. It's not a hidden right-wing agenda, it's all out there.

U.S. economics are also far to the right. Looking at corporate pandering, you write that during the Eisenhower era, corporations paid an average of 25 percent of the federal tax bill. In 2000, only 10 percent and by 2001, it was down to 7 percent. What do you predict it will be by 2003?

MI: Again, I'm not in the Jean Dixon business. It's not so much that we need to increase taxes but to collect those already on the books. What's extraordinary and astonishing is the exodus of corporations to offshore banks, to the Bahamas and Caymans, using post office addresses that are just mail drops to avoid taxes. And this administration doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with giving corporations that pay no taxes government contracts. Last week, the New York Times reported that the Senate Finance Committee is now considering a $100 billion -- that's more than needed for the Iraq War, right? -- tax recess for corporations who make money abroad -- they can bring it back without paying taxes. You might think that would encourage corporations to keep exporting jobs and operations abroad.

You point out that in 1995, 17 percent of the roughly 7,500 corporations with assets of over $250 million filed returns claiming they owed no income tax. Then a Republican Congress slowly starved the IRS so it had no power, and since then, it has focused on the "working poor," turning its auditing lens toward those claiming earned income credit, and this past spring, announced further audits of EIC filers. But let's go back to '95. Did Clinton argue much with the backing off of corporate audits?