The Washington Post noted, as I did, that Tom Daschle made a long speech against tax cuts but somehow omitted any mention of calling off the tax cuts. The Post, of course, sees this as dropping the liberal flag in the dust, and calls Daschle to task for "lacking the courage" to call for the repeal of the long-term tax cuts. The Post also berates the Republicans for assuming that any Democrat would advocate tax hikes during an election year...er...that is, during a recession. (It's AFTER the election that they will give you the works.)

...The truth is that the economy may or may not need an immediate stimulus to recover from recession, but it almost certainly needs a remedy for the future deficits that will otherwise make the baby boomers' retirement unaffordable.

The old "scare the old folks" routine. This threat is aimed at current retirees, who can easily be convinced that their meager Social Security pittance is just a Republican moustache-twirl away from oblivion.

No "baby boomer" with an IQ of more than one digit believes that Social Security is going to pay his way, and most younger people firmly believe that the entire program will blow up long before they get their first check. Check this survey out.

It is perfectly reasonable to advocate a tax cut for this year coupled with a freeze on the cuts that were planned for the future.

Sure! That way the Democrats can be "for" tax cuts before the critical 2002 election. After that, when they hopefully have control of both Houses of Congress, and the Republicans have been machine-gunned and tipped into lime pits (only in a political sense, of course,) then the sky is the limit.

Indeed, a freeze on future cuts would bring an immediate economic boost. The prospect of future deficits puts upward pressure on long-term interest rates, which means that today's mortgage and credit-card payments are higher than they otherwise would be.

I hear this mantra from a lot of liberals lately. I have never heard it before, or from anyone else. A quick look at the general history of deficits and interest rates doesn't seem to show any such direct correlation. For example, the increase in deficits during the Reagan years should, by this rule, have resulted in skyrocketing interest rates and a flat economy. They didn't.

The Democrats are, of course, hoping you don't notice that current interest rates are already rock bottom.

The main Bush tax cut that has come into effect already is the creation of a new 10 per cent tax bracket, lower than the previous 15 percent minimum. This accounts for roughly half the long-run cost of the whole package. If the rest were frozen, the savings would cover the long-term deficit in the Social
Security system and leave a bit to spare. Alternatively, just freezing the egregious repeal of the estate tax, which is paid only by the wealthiest 2 percent of households, would free up around $50 billion a year -- more than the entire budget of the Department of Education. Mr. Bush has sworn to resist these sane options. But at least the tax-cutters in both parties should stop confusing the long and the short term, and acknowledge that the coming demographic crunch poses a serious challenge.

Just for jollies, I have put in boldface the terms these arrogant bastards sprinkle into these discussions, all of which, if taken seriously, imply that your wealth is by right the property of the state. Money that you have earned, that they do NOT take from you, is considered a "loss" to the government. A government "cost," or an "expense." Money that they DO confiscate from you is considered a "savings," and is "freed up" from whatever rotten use you peons were going to put it to.

The estate tax is probably responsible for the loss of more family farms and businesses than anything else in this country. I come from farm stock, and I know what has happened to relatives who had to sell off to pay the taxes. Of course, some agri-corporation with lobbyists in Washington is always happy to buy.

And as for the Department of Education...don't even get me started. This gigantic Federal pile of fly-ridden mastodon shit didn't even exist 25 years ago*, yet by all reasonable standards of measurement our school system turned out far more educated and literate children before it was founded. Hell, we put men on the Moon without it, and developed the most advanced technological civilization on the planet. The Department of Education has blown over half a trillion dollars between 1980 and 2000--almost $600 a year averaged over that time for every single school-aged child in the U.S. (at current funding levels it's close to $1,000 a year). And for what? Other than firmly entrenching Federal power in the education system?

Frankly, if the DOE was scrapped and the $50 billion a year given back to us to educate our kids, it would probably be a vast improvement.

*How many people do you think even know that the DOE was founded in 1980? Most people probably think Benjamin Franklin came up with it.