Whatever the results of the upcoming election for control of the Congress, the leadership will have less than 60 days to decide the fate of the Bush tax cuts.

The options are clear but not simple: Extend the current law, allow it to lapse, or modify it. Neither one of the first two options is politically feasible, so modification is a certainty. The nature of that modification will depend largely on the strength of the president's backbone.

He has steadfastly proposed continuing the existing rates only for incomes up to $250,000 and reverting to the pre-Bush rates for incomes above that level. The Republicans have, with equal conviction, argued for maintaining the existing structure for all levels. In both cases, the ancillary issue is "for how long." In terms of their impact on the federal budget deficit, the differences among these choices are enormous.

In support of his position, the president argues the need for continued economic stimulus, which can best be achieved by maintaining middle-income purchasing power. He also argues the need to avoid the increase in the deficit that would accompany lower rates for the upper income levels. Given the stagnation in middle-class incomes and substantial growth in upper-level incomes that has occurred in the past decade, the president also emphasizes the demands of equity.

In support of their position, the Republicans argue that the tax burden on the upper income level is already too high as evidenced by the disparity in total tax contributions, and that restoring higher upper income level rates will exacerbate the recession through a decrease in consumer demand and discouragement of capital investment and innovation, all of which will inhibit job creation.

The deficit consequences of choice are reasonably clear. If the existing rates were continued for all income levels, the annual budget deficit (now running at about $1.5 trillion) would be increased by about $500 billion annually, or by a total of about $4 trillion by 2020.

Continuing existing rates for the middle class but reverting to pre-Bush rates for the upper income level would reduce that figure to $3 trillion. Variations, such as limiting extensions at either level to two or three years, would of course yield corresponding deficit decreases.

Here are some of the data upon which choices will rest. First, income.

Between 2002 and 2007, two-thirds of the total gain in the nation's income went to the top 1 percent (or about 117,000) households. For the bottom 90 percent (those with incomes below $110,000 a year), the average gain was $1,206; for the next 9 percent ($110,000 to $400,000), it was $19,476; for the top 1 percent, $521,127; and, for the top 1/10 of 1 percent, $3,455,384.

In 2007, the top one-tenth of 1 percent of households (about 11,700) received more than 12 percent of the nation's income, and the top 1 percent of the nation's households received about 24 percent of the total.

For a perspective, imagine the citizens of Chattanooga, Tenn., having an aggregate income of $3.6 trillion and the rest of the nation getting by on $11.4 trillion.

Now for a look at the federal income tax burden.

It was estimated that for 2007, the top 1 percent accounted for 40 percent of the receipts, the top 5 percent for 60 percent, the top 10 percent for 70 percent, the top 25 percent for 86 percent, the top 50 percent for 97 percent. The bottom 50 percent paid only 3 percent.

A couple of observations regarding burden.

The bottom half, those earning $50,000 or less, bear a payroll tax of 15 percent for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and sales taxes of 6-7 percent. Many of those earning $35,000 or less are, however, also eligible for an earned income tax credit, which may amount to a full offset of any income tax.

A Foreboding Future

So what does it all add up to? When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton replied, "Because that's where the money is!" This truism leaves only two ways to lower the high income tax burden - both of which will be extremely difficult to accomplish.

First, cut spending.

The 2010 budget includes $713 billion for defense; $2.3trillion for health, Social Security and veterans; $394 billion for all other departments and programs; and $254 billion for interest on the debt. There are probably a million ways to cut a budget of that size - and a million disagreements as to where or how much!

The second and even more difficult way to lower the high income tax burden is to increase the number and pay of jobs at the middle and lower levels. Tax rates are irrelevant in the absence of income.

Seeking solutions in either case will require wisdom, judgment and, most important, resolve - hackneyed talking points may get votes for one side or the other but they won't solve problems.

This nation is confronted by a foreboding future, and it is time for both parties to come forward with the leadership that circumstance requires. It is time to get real.

Some Hope Lingers

We are not a nation where assaults on the Constitution have run amok. Nor are we confronted by a government determined to crush dissent and extinguish freedoms.

We are a nation with high moral aspirations now plagued by deep, systemic economic and social problems - among many others, the existence of a large segment of the citizenry too uneducated, too poor, and too undervalued to make meaningful economic contributions, and another large, more capable segment stranded without jobs or with greatly diminished hopes of upward mobility.

Our times call for the resurrection of a forgotten art: political statesmanship. As a practical, political fact, even long-term solutions at these fundamental socio-economic levels may well be, despite the best of intention, beyond our ken. But it is not beyond our ken to no longer tolerate the substitution of short-term political interests for the satisfaction of long-term national needs.

As far back as the Mayflower Compact, there has been a covenant to "combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politik for our better Ordering and Preservation." For far too long there has been little of the combining and still less of the civil in our "Body Politik."

Change can only come through our combined insistence. Perhaps there is still, albeit desperate, some lingering hope.

J. Thomas Tidd is a retired attorney living in Pinehurst.