I could post about thirty of these a day if I wanted to.

This time Bob Herbert sounds the clarion call against the Evil Conservatives, saying absolutely nothing that doesn't come off the little 3 x 5 Left Wing Policy card.

One of the definitions of slick is "deftly executed; adroit." Synonyms include "sly, shrewd, slippery, wily." hese words came to mind as I watched the Republican Party's remarkable off-year election triumph last week. Give credit where it's due. Bill Clinton at his most devious was never as sly or as cunning (or as politically effective) as the Republican Party has become.

Bush is probably tickled pink. He's gone from Gormless Doof to Evil Genius again.

I think of the G.O.P. as the costume party. It wears a sunny mask, which conceals a reality that is far more ideological, far more extreme, than most Americans realize.

Most Americans don't realize it because it's primarily a fantasy of the Left. Americans don't see those pink elephants that come out of your bong, either.

Among the less meaningful questions being asked in Washington is whether the Republicans, having won control of the Senate and strengthened their hold on the House, will now go too far and outpace their mandate. My question is: Where have you been? In a nation that is divided almost 50-50 politically, the Republicans flew past their mandate a long time ago.



Driven by its right wing and aided immeasurably by George W. Bush's genial smile, the G.O.P. is putting in place profoundly conservative policies that will hamper progressive efforts for decades to come, no matter what happens in upcoming elections.

With the help of Democrats who should have known better, the Republicans have already enacted a huge and potentially hazardous round of tax cuts. In an environment in which budget deficits have returned and war appears to be imminent, common sense would seem to suggest that the government tread softly on tax cuts for the time being. But a key element of the G.O.P. agenda in the immediate aftermath of last week's stunning victories was a plan to make the current tax cuts permanent and enact a new package of cuts.



This line of reasoning is, of course, utter bullshit. George Bush began pushing for tax cuts when the economy was still riding high and for all anyone knew, surpluses were projected far into the future. The objective was, aside from the economic benefits, to return the surplus to the citizens. The Democrats still said that such cuts would happen over their cold, dead bodies. Obviously, their primary opposition had little or nothing to do with fiscal policy or worries about deficits. The Democrats just don't like money remaining in the private sector when they have much BETTER things to do with it.

There is a method to the G.O.P.'s tax cut madness, beyond the obvious benefits to the very rich. Conservatives have long reasoned that the only way to destroy popular programs that actually help ordinary Americans (Social Security, Medicare and so on) is to starve the government of the money needed to pay for them.

One would have thought the Social Security Scare tactic would be dropped, considering that nobody bought it last Tuesday. It's possible that people noticed that no one has missed a Social Security check since the 1930s, even through eight years of Reagan, and it seems unlikely that Bush will suddenly decide to rip up their checks either.

The intensity of the conservative opposition to such programs can be startling. To Ronald Reagan, for example, Medicare was an affront to the very idea of America. The historian Robert Dallek noted that Mr. Reagan "saw Medicare as the advance wave of socialism, which would 'invade every area of freedom in this country.' "

I suppose that it would be futile to point out that Reagan was absolutely right. Medical care provided solely by the government is, of course, socialist, in the same way that any normally private service provided solely by the State is socialist. But that's neither here nor there. It seems a little bold for the author to wax sarcastic about conservative fears of ballooning growth on the part of Medicare, since that is exactly what has happened. Medicare and Medicaid, two programs that didn't even exist when I was young, currently devour almost $400 billion dollars a year, considerably more than the Defense budget. The private alternatives that took care of the medical needs of most of the elderly before, have since been systematically destroyed. Now we're almost certainly going to tack on a massive prescription drug welfare program. Funny how Democrats only worry about deficits when taxes come up.

During a budget fight in the mid-90's, Newt Gingrich, apparently referring to the original fee-for-service version of Medicare, which had become cherished by the elderly, wisecracked: "We don't get rid of it in Round One because we don't think it's politically smart."

This is, of course, a flatout lie. And the author knows it, since it has been pointed out again and again. Like most tasty lies (Bush and the grocery store scanner, Hoover and the dress) it's just too useful to let go.

The way to cripple such programs without openly opposing them is to bleed the government of the money to pay for them. With the prospect of budget deficits stretching far into the future, and with the first wave of baby boomers already well into their 50's, the day of reckoning for Social Security and Medicare is not far off.

So start phasing it out, already. Fix it. Pull your gun out of my chest, and let me off the merry-go-round. Heck, you can even keep what you've looted from me so far. Just stop taking Social Security money from me, and I won't take any benefits. That's fair, isn't it?

The right wing of the G.O.P. has also proved itself hostile to environmental protection, and to the myriad health and safety regulations that protect Americans against poisonous foods and other dangerous products and practices. One of its most important leaders in those fights, Representative Tom DeLay, will now ascend to the post of House majority leader.



How extreme is Mr. DeLay? When the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to the discoverers of the link between chlorofluorocarbons and ozone depletion, Mr. DeLay mocked the award as the "Nobel Appeasement Prize."



I think we have seen enough of the Nobel Prize awards over the past couple of decades to form our own opinions on whether or not they are politically-driven.

And then there are the federal courts, which are being packed by conservatives from coast to coast, with the big prize — appointments to the Supreme Court — still to come.



Over the next couple of years as many as three (or more) Supreme Court vacancies could open, which could determine the direction of the court for the next 30 years. President Bush has made it clear that he favors justices in the mode of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. With two more justices like that, progressive government would be caught in the devastating trap of a right-wing assault from all sides — the White House, the Congress and the courts — with the Treasury drained of all money for new initiatives.

Slick? Adroit? Any number of adjectives will do. How about dangerous?



Of course, it's just fine to pack the court with "progressives."

"New initiatives?" What happened to all that fiscal concern that showed up when tax cuts were mentioned? Brrrr...I can just imagine what "new initiatives" he has in mind.

Just more of the same, piled higher and deeper. I'm going to try and look for some rants that are a little more original.