Don't listen to the discredited supply-side economists. Polls consistently show that people will happily pay more in taxes to help fix stuff that's broken in America. They'll always trade tax cuts for progress -- deficit reduction, lower health care costs, shoring up Social Security, etc. In short, they understand that tax cuts on the scale we're talking about in 2004 provide very little in the way of substantial relief -- and that the big picture is what's important.

Example: a poll out today shows that by a hefty 2-to-1 margin, Americans would rather see Bush cut the deficit than cut taxes.

Now you might ask: could this be because voters simply strike a balance, and -- having received enough tax cuts -- are now happy with their level of taxation? And I would answer: no! Because, as polls such as this one from April have shown, most Americans don't think the Bush tax cuts have helped them personally.

This is all irrelevant, of course, since Bush's fiscal policy isn't primarily about pleasing -- or even helping -- the average American. $350 a year isn't changing working people's lives. The cuts are about helping wealthy investors and creating mountains of debt to starve the government.

In that vein, one of the most mind-boggling, shamelessly effective talking points of the Bush campaign was, "How is Senator Kerry going to pay for all the stuff he's proposing?" And in a way, Bush might have been right that there wasn't enough money for it. And, gee, why could that be?

*thinking* *thinking* *thinking*

I've got it! Perhaps Kerry would have been able to pay for it with, say, a 5 trillion dollar surplus, if Bush hadn't intentionally squandered it!

0 comments. Leave one!