No matter how much the economy improves, Bush will get no credit from the media "analysts," and neither will the tax cuts. It will all be part of a natural "cycle," and surely if taxes were higher, the economy would be doing better (huh?)

However, if the economy was going in the toilet, Bush and the tax cuts would be getting 100 percent of the blame. Every bit of the downturn would be his fault.

And I think everyone here knows that's what would happen.

Tax cuts work by keeping money in the private sector. Cutting taxes on people who pay hardly any, putting a billion or two back into the economy while loudly proclaiming what a good boy you are for giving a break to the "working man" is politically a great concept--certainly good for getting votes--but does little or nothing for the economy.

Apparently the idea is that you give the lower classes some more disposable income, they buy stuff, the producer makes more stuff, and makes more money, which he then invests, and you get growth. "Trickle up," instead of "trickle down."

Oddly, the idea of cutting taxes on the producer, which instantly gives them more money to invest, seems to make no sense to the proponents of the "trickle up" idea.

Of course, like I said, the real agenda of "tax cuts for the working man" is to make a lot of noise on tax cuts, and get a lot of political benefit, while the real hidden result is very little reduction in the massive flow of cash to the government.