I noticed that the only number referred to in the CBO report of "two weeks ago" is cumulative deficit. Did you notice that? Did they also mention that the 2004 annual deficit is the peak of the curve, and that deficits are predicted to fall after that? That surpluses appear in 2012? Good luck seeing THOSE numbers quoted.

Of course, the accuracy of this whole thing is subject to review. Remember, it was the same CBO that predicted surpluses as far as the eye could see a few years ago.

Again, we see the basic Democratic premise that tax revenues are a static function. That wealth retained in the private sector will not grow the economy. That somehow wealth pumped into the Federal treasury will.

Deficits equalled or exceeded 5 percent of GDP during three years in the 1980s. Somehow, we got past that. During WWII, deficits shot as high as 30 percent of GDP. We got past that, too.

Businesses and individuals plan their futures over many years. Creating tax cuts that crap out in a few years took much of the economic wind out of the cuts, but not all. Making them permanent would have much more positive impact on economic growth. Revenues and tax rates are not a zero-sum game.