Tom, you managed to dodge addressing the substance of that editorial.

You know it's factually correct that US corporations do everything in their power, legal, grey area, or illegal, to avoid taxes; and it's factually correct that a large number of corporations manage to pay no taxes at all. I know you think that taxes should be eliminated entirely, but if we have to pay taxes, don't you think that everyone should bear the burden equally? Don't you defend "tax cuts for the wealthy" by arguing that the benefits should equal the burden?

It's factually correct that the supply-side--the US productive "plant"--is operating below capacity already. Last figure I heard was 75%. How will making more capital available be an incentive for businessess to buy more capital equipment and hire more workers when they're not getting full use of what they already have?

And will more capital become available? Many businesses have large cash reserves that they've built up instead of paying dividends. They already have capital that they're not using to expand, because there's no demand for new supply. Instead, under Bush's proposal, they'll have an incentive to pay it out to private shareholders, where it may, or may not, be recycled in the form of new stock purchases. Given the present economic climate, many people will look for the security of less-stimulative investments...such as government bonds necessitated by Bush's exploding deficit.

In the end, could Bush's "stimulus" package just be a way to pay for his war?

--Robert