A link to your article.

First: "projections" are horseshit, and always have been. Look at the record of ten year "projections" from the government over the past twenty years. (It should be remembered that Democrats were hard over against tax cuts when projections showed surpluses into the future as far as the eye could see, which shows that deficits aren't really their problem.)

Second: I am all for fiscal responsibility. I am not for promoting the flatout lie the Democrats are trying to sell that Bush's tax cuts are the cause of our problems, either the current economic situation or future debt. I will not accept the premise that the solution for our fiscal problems is in higher taxes. The numbers do not add up. If you want to make the case that killing the tax cuts would send a psychological message about deficits, fine.

Third: Both Democrats and Republicans have to look the gorgon straight in the eye and admit that the only real financial problem we have is the massive wealth redistribution infrastructure--Social Security and Medicare. It swallows over half the entire Federal budget each year, and according to at least one analysis, will be responsible for 99 percent of our future debt load. It is in fact impossible to fulfill the "social contract" as it is now written.

Naturally, this is the last thing on earth the Democratic Party wants people to learn. They figure if they shout loud enough about the tax cuts, nobody will pay attention to the real facts. I noticed that the supposed "expose" of the report "ignored" by Bush--the one I linked to just above--dropped out of the news damned fast after the contents of the whole report became known.

Please note the comments on the Democrats in this same article:

I have often and at great length criticized the free-lunch games of many Republican reform plans for Social Security -- like personal accounts that will be ''funded'' by deficit-financed contributions. But at least they pretend to have reform plans. Democrats have nothing. Or as Bob Kerrey puts it quite nicely, most of his fellow Democrats propose the ''do-nothing plan,'' a blank sheet of paper that essentially says it is O.K. to cut benefits by 26 percent across the board when the money runs out. Assuming that Democrats would feel genuine compassion for the lower-income retirees, widows and disabled parents who would be most affected by such a cut, I have suggested to them that maybe we ought to introduce an ''affluence test'' that reduces benefits for fat cats like me.

To my amazement, Democrats angrily respond with irrelevant cliches like ''programs for the poor are poor programs'' or ''Social Security is a social contract that cannot be broken.'' Apparently, it doesn't matter that the program is already unsustainable. They cling to the mast and are ready to go down with the ship.

To most Democratic leaders, federal entitlements are their theology.

One fact that Peterson will not confront is that the purpose of entitlements is not to assist people with medical care and retirement. It's to make a large segment of the voting population utterly dependent on the State. Naturally, means-testing the programs, although it accomplishes the supposed purpose of the program, fails to accomplish the real purpose of accumulating political power. There just aren't that many poor elderly.

I'm not sure what it will take to make our two-party system healthy again. I hope that in the search for a durable majority, Republicans will sooner or later realize that it won't happen without coming to terms with deficits and debts, and Democrats will likewise realize it won't happen for them without coming to terms with entitlements.

I agree with Peterson that nothing real is going to happen unless both parties face the truth. Don't hold your breath. But right now the debate is completely one-sided against the Republicans, like the anti-war protests across the planet that had not a single sign calling on Saddam to do something to promote peace. When you see a Democrat talking real Medicare reform, let me know.

I think the real root of this entire tax-cut argument is a child-like faith that a dollar in the hands of Ted Kennedy will do more for the nation and the economy than a dollar in the hands of the private sector, and that the proper size of government is infinite. I can't change that thinking. It's bred in the bone for many people. I happen to believe the opposite is true, and I think the performance record of the private sector over the public one backs me up.