The government will apparently be "forced" to dip into the Social Security fund to the tune of about $9 billion. Expect to see, within the next week or so, Democratic commercials showing corpulent Republicans tearing down the road in huge limousines dragging the torn bodies of poverty-stricken elderly behind them on ropes.

Of course, only economic illiterates believe that there is any such thing as a "Social Security Fund." The tax money comes in, either income tax or Social Security tax, and it goes right down whatever rathole is nearest at the time. Social Security has been a pay-as-you-go welfare program for years.

Nevertheless, this will be all the Democrats need. Bush is about to pay a terrible price for committing what liberals consider to be the ultimate crime: allowing citizens to keep some pathetic fraction of their own money. He is going to be raked across the coals for his "tax cut to the rich."

By the way, do you know how much I am getting for my tax rebate? $600. Do you know how much Bill Gates is getting? $600. I'll bet he paid a bit more than that in taxes.

Unmentioned, naturally, is the spending level. The Democrats will never consider even reducing the rate of government growth, and the mere thought of an actual spending cut would probably cause their brains to explode.

* * *

Now, if I may bring up one of my favorite old subjects:

The estimated Federal Budget for the year 2000 was listed at 1,670.3 billion dollars in constant 1996 dollars. This is over TWICE what the budget was 26 years ago, in 1974 ($805.3 billion).



Again, this is in CONSTANT DOLLARS, adjusted for inflation.



I was around in 1974. Old people were not starving in the streets. Military spending was at the height of the Cold War. Social Security and welfare checks were going out on time. Kids were going to school. The highways were in good shape. Everything was working pretty damn well, all things considered.

However, 1974 government receipts were $786.9 billion, resulting in a deficit of about $18.4 billion. This worried a lot of people back then, mostly Republicans, who thought the solution was less spending, not more taxes. Democrats insisted then, as now, that to cut the budget by even a small amount would certainly result in the collapse of American civilization as we know it, and that the solution was higher taxes on the rich.

Last year (most recent figures available) we were at $1,670.3 billion, with estimated revenues of $1,825.9 billion, for an estimated surplus of $155.6 billion dollars. Republicans again felt the solution was cutting spending and reducing taxes, and thought there may be a little extra fat in the system to allow this. The Democrats again felt that to cut this budget by even a couple of percentage points would certainly result in the collapse of American civilization as we know it. This position was demonstrated again and again during budget negotiations as they screamed and wailed and rent their garments when presented with even half-a-percent budget cuts. Their solution was to keep the high tax rates and the high spending. Given the size of the budget, compared to less than three decades ago (in constant dollars, remember), which of these positions had the most credibility? We did eventually get a tax cut, a paltry fraction of the surplus.

How stupid can we get? Is anyone out there getting more than twice the service from the government as we got in 1974? There is obviously immense waste and abuse going on at all levels of Federal spending. If the government allowed the entire $155.6 billion surplus to remain in the private sector, and dumped out an ADDITIONAL $155.6 billion to pay back some of the debt, the remaining budget would still be $1,359 billion, which is more than the entire budget only thirteen years ago ($1,348.1 billion in 1988)!

George W. Bush wanted people to keep more of what they had already earned. It is their money, not the government's. Letting them keep some of it is NOT government "spending." They will not "pocket" this money. It will remain in the productive private sector instead of heading down one of the government's ratholes. Every nickel that stays in the private sector instead of being hauled to Washington is a net gain for the country.

Something to consider: say an average citizen went to buy a car, and paid $50,000 for it. Later, he finds out the car should only cost $40,000 and he goes to the dealer for an explanation. The dealer replies that, yes, they took an additional $10,000 from the customer, but that it will be well-spent on day care facilities, re-landscaping the lot, and donations to the dealer's favorite charities. It will most certainly not be refunded, as this would not permit the dealer to be this generous.

How many people would stand for this? Most people would haul the dealer to court, if they didn't beat him up on the spot. Yet they accept this abuse like sheep when taxes and endless Federal spending are involved.