In fact, what we've done is given ANOTHER $4.5 trillion of our kids' money to rich people, who paid a little of their gains to the government, allowing the crook in chief to claim that the rate cut increased tax revenue. This ignores the source of the funding (huge debt), which not only compromises the future, it compromises the present. Under this fabulous policy of valuing wealth over work, the stock market has been stagnant under GWB for the longest stretch since the Depression. Middle class income, in real dollars, has declined while prices of virtually everything is skyrocketing.

I have to assume those who buy this cut taxes/increase revenue fable are the very ones who are lining their pockets with our children's money.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

Never underestimate feelings of resentment and disenfranchizement among the populace. The upheavals that causes can get ugly.

No one who believes this one is credible on any subject so far as I can tell.

* * *

“Tax cuts have actually increased the revenue to the treasury, so there is more money to work with.”

They have worked in the past and could work again if permitted to. However, while the revenues increase, what happens when for every $1.00 in tax revenue Congress (in recent years, with tacit approval of the Bush administration) has spent more than $1.00?

* * *

“a way of channeling public funds into private hands”

That's where our Bush administration friends have not only imitated, but outdone the Dems, traditional for such goings-on: Not just _any_ private hands, enjoyed this channeling, don't forget, but certain _favored_ private hands. (Kind of like those who are favored for, say, prized Detroit city contract work.) And now it's on everyone's mind whenever privatization or contracting-out is considered in our future.

Shaun's list is correct, but perhaps a simplification will tie it together. The “neoconservative” agenda is quite simple. As elucidated by Milton Friedman, it rests on three principles: “privatization,” government deregulation and deep cuts in social spending. The Bush administration has been phenomenally successful in achieving this, by privatizing some of the last functions of government -security, defense and disaster relief- as a way of channeling public funds into private hands; turning regulation of industry over to industries themselves in order to “liberate” corporations from onerous regulations, but actually just allowing them to maximize their wealth at the expense of everyone's health and well-being. Corporate control of the media allows the neoconservative alliance of big government and big business to fleece us all in the dark. The Republicans, while claiming to be tax cutters, have handed us the biggest tax increase in history. It's the debt and the interest on the debt, because of which we now owe $31,000 each and a staggering $275 a month in interest on the debt for every taxpayer. ($429 billion interest in 2007 / 130 million taxpayers). That's without paying down a dime of the debt.

That's the neocon idea of a “tax cut”. Cut the rate, borrow to pay for it, add the interest to our tab.

The Democrats in congress have had two years in which to defund the Iraq War. They took a pass both times when they had the chance. If ending the Iraq War today has very important, they could have cancelled the funding.

The Democrats have worked very hard to cloud the issue about constitutionality. Congress can zero the budget anytime it wants and there is nothing the White House can do about it. Yet, the Democrats in Congress seem more interested in pork filled farm bills and actually managing the budget process.

George Bush has doubled the amount of money spent for educations since Clinton left office. How that money is spent is the function of the Democrat lead congress.

Government spending is out of control, however, congress spends the money – not the president (although he should have vetoed a number of bills).

We could go through point by point, but why bother?

Note to Shaun, in a few months President Bush will be gone and the Democrats will have full control of the government. President Bush has been unable to affect policy for the last two years. Trying writing at least one column where you discuss the problems with the policy proposals of the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress instead of just making escuses for them.

Does anyone really believe that Democratic politicians who give trial lawyers, the teachers unions, and environmentalist whatever they want can really fix healthcare, education, or energy?

If nothing else, Shaun should list the industries and career fields in the private sector that someone who be eager to go into because of the coming Obama Adminstration. The only one I can think of as trial lawyer but that field is massively overfilled.