As an exercise in perception, go through that entire article, and everyplace it says something will "cost" the government "X billion over ten years," insert the phrase "will return X billion to the economy over ten years."

The inference in articles like this is that all wealth is the property of the state, and it's up to them how much you get to keep. A tax cut is seen only as a loss to the state. The money restored to the productive private sector is ignored.

The concept of tax cuts as "losses" also is based on the assumption that somehow those billions in the government will do more for the economy than the same billions circulating in the private sector. This is, based on experience, not exactly a slam-dunk assumption.

That being said, any new entitlements need to be scrapped. To add another massive new open-ended obligation on the government at this point is completely insane, and both Democrats and Republicans supporting universal prescription drug coverage need to rethink this right away. We should be working on ramping back current elderly entitlements for those just entering the work force, not adding new ones.

Some form of prescription support for those elderly who are poor or have other problems preventing them from covering their own costs is not out of the question, but it needs to be approached as an emergency safety net for the needy, not a universal program.

Democrats are against this need-based system. Do I need to explain why?

It also wouldn't hurt for Bush to go back and rethink some of the other excessive spending he has cooperated in, like the farm bill and some others. Peeling some of the pork off the Homeland Security Bill would be nice, too.