Time reports on the already-super-rich "who will reap a windfall thanks to the Bush cut, which lowered the tax rate on dividends to 15% from a top marginal rate of 38.6%. Since May more than 200 firms have raised their payouts to shareholders, and - in a time of scrutiny over pay packages - the increases are minting riches for bosses who own a lot of company stock. Citigroup, for example, just raised its annual dividend 75% to $1.40--very timely for CEO Sandy Weill... With a net worth of $1 billion, it's not as if Weill needs the money. Still, his 22 million Citi shares will spin off $27 million a year in after-tax income, up from $11 million... The mother of all dividend pay raises emerged at Microsoft, where co-founder Bill Gates will enjoy an after-tax windfall of $82 million a year... He is already the richest person in the world, with $30 billion in Microsoft stock. But the sheer size of his dividend is eye popping."

AP reports: "The House voted narrowly yesterday to extend $1,000 child tax credits through the rest of the decade, but low-income families would have to wait a year before they could cash in on rebates going out to other households this summer. The 224-201 vote on the package of $82 billion in new tax cuts sets up a confrontation with the Senate, which a week ago passed a much smaller bill to allow 6.5 million low-wage households to qualify for the checks of up to $400 per child. The House bill contains a broad expansion of the child credit, carrying the increase to $1,000 through the end of the decade. The credit would drop to $700 in 2006 if left unchanged." Thanks to the high-pressure tactics of Tom DeLay, "the House also gives wealthier married couples a bigger credit, allowing couples who make $150,000 or more to claim part of the credit."

Use Tony Small's tax cut calculator to compare your "tax relief" to a Bushbuddy's.

"Less attention has been paid to fine print that reveals the supposed rationale for the dividend tax cut as a smoke screen. The problem, we were told, is that profits are taxed twice: once when they are earned, a second time when they are paid out as dividends. But as any tax expert will tell you, the corporate tax law is full of loopholes; many profitable corporations pay little or no taxes. The original Bush plan ensured that dividends from such companies would not get a tax break. But those safeguards vanished from the final bill: dividends will get special treatment regardless of how much tax is paid by the company that issues them... This little change has two big consequences. First, ... wealthy individuals who get most of their income from dividends and capital gains will often end up paying lower tax rates than ordinary Americans who work for a living. Second, the tax cut -- originally billed as a way to reduce abuses -- may well usher in a golden age of tax evasion."

"The House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay, said today that the House would not consider a Democratic measure to provide an increased tax credit to 6.5 million low-income families who did not receive it in the new tax law. Mr. DeLay, a Texas Republican, said the increased tax credits would be approved only if they were part of a broader tax-cut package, possibly including permanent repeal of the estate tax or making state sales taxes deductible. A package of that size would require 60 votes to pass in the Senate, and Democratic opposition to big new tax cuts would make such passage almost impossible... Like Mr. DeLay, many Senate Republicans would prefer to consider the child credits as part of a more expensive bill that would cut other taxes. One such bill, introduced today by the chief Senate tax writer, Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Finance Committee, would extend the credit to both minimum-wage families and to far wealthier married couples."

CNN reports: "With Democrats complaining that low-income families were shortchanged in the latest round of tax cuts, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, plans to introduce legislation this week to extend and expand the increase in the child tax credit... Grassley's bill is intended to address complaints that several million low-income households gained little or nothing from the tax cut bill just signed into law... But a provision that would have extended the child tax credit to families making between $10,500 and $26,626 was excluded from the final bill signed by President [sic] Bush. Democrats have hammered away at Republicans and the White House, saying the bill signed into law favors the wealthy... According to the Grassley statement, the cost of extending the child tax credit to low-income families starting this year would be about $3.5 billion over 10 years. Congressional numbers crunchers said the cost of making the entire provision permanent would be $93 billion through 2010."

Citizens for Tax Justice writes: "Despite misleading Presidential rhetoric, almost half of all American taxpayers will get less than $100 this year and next from President [sic] Bush's just-passed tax plan. In 2005, three-quarters of taxpayers will get less than $100, and in 2006 and later years almost nine out of ten will get less than $100."

"A last-minute revision by House and Senate leaders in the tax bill that President [sic] Bush signed [Wednesday] will prevent millions of minimum-wage families from receiving the increased child credit that is in the measure... after studying the bill approved on Friday, liberal and child advocacy groups discovered that a different group of families would also not benefit from the $400 increase -- families who make just above the minimum wage... Because of the formula for calculating the credit, most families with incomes from $10,500 to $26,625 will not benefit. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal group, says those families include 11.9 million children, or one of every six children under 17... The provision... would have cost $3.5 billion... Democrats and children's advocacy groups said the Republican demand for large cuts in the dividend tax, which they said benefits primarily wealthy taxpayers, pushed away the credit from low income families."

CBS News reports: "The resident once ridiculed the tax bill he signed Wednesday as 'a little-bitty tax cut' -- today, he hailed it as fuel for an economic recovery... But unless future congresses are willing to yank back benefits like the $1000 per child tax credit, the little bitty tax cut will actually cost not $350 billion, but close to a trillion dollars over the next ten years, reports CBS News White House Correspondent Bill Plante... Democrats also have criticized the package as a giveaway to the wealthy, stressing its cuts on taxes on capital gains and corporate dividends rather than its lower income tax rates and increases in the federal child credit... after a $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, a $96 billion stimulus last fall and the new $350 billion package, it is widely agreed that Mr. Bush now has ownership of the economy for better or for worse."

David E. Rosenbaum writes: "True, the price tag on the tax bill the House approved this morning is officially only $320 billion over 10 years, barely two-fifths of the $726 billion Resident Bush proposed in February... barring a political upheaval that puts Democrats in the White House and in control of Congress, is it [un]likely that the lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains will be allowed to expire after 2008, another sunset in the bill... If these elements of the tax cut are calculated on a 10-year basis, the cost in lost revenue stands to be over $800 billion, more than what the resident proposed, according to the first analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priority, a liberal research institute. More important, the tax reduction this year and next year under the Congressional agreement is significantly larger than what the president originally proposed... The budget deficit, long the bugaboo of Republicans, could reach $400 billion this year."

From a Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial: "Under current tax law, it's permissible to write off $25,000 from your taxes in the first year after the purchase of a 6,000-pound truck or SUV. (Then there's the gravy of 20 percent a year after that.) But the Senate bill increases the tax deduction to $100,000. Who did it? We don't even know, yet. There are no fingerprints on the amendment -- legislation was going back and forth so fast Thursday night that this little gem slipped in quietly. Fortunately this bill is not law yet -- but the House version has a similar proposal. But don't worry too much. Congress isn't finished yet. Lawmakers are also crafting a new energy bill -- and one proposal calls for the elimination of a $2,000 tax deduction for fuel-efficient gas-electric hybrid vehicles."

"The Washington-based Club for Growth... is running commercials with footage of John F. Kennedy to boost support for Resident Bush's proposed tax cuts. But the political ads have drawn the wrath of U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy, ...who describe them as 'politically irresponsible and grossly inaccurate'... But the commercials, running in Maine and Ohio, ignore a key difference between the JFK and Bush tax cuts, the Kennedys argue. 'The tax benefits of President Kennedy's legislation went primarily to lower- and middle-income working families,' the Kennedys wrote to Club for Growth president Stephen Moore on May 8. 'They received 83 percent of the tax savings under his income tax cuts. In stark contrast, the prime beneficiaries of President [sic] Bush's plan are taxpayers with incomes over $100,000, who would receive more that 60 percent of the tax breaks from his proposal,' the letter read. 'Such assertions have no place in honest political discourse'"

AP reports: "Senators who approved a suspension of taxes on investor dividends last week underestimated the cost of the measure by $70 billion because of an error by congressional tax experts. The mistake was discovered as House and Senate negotiators sat down to combine their tax bills... Discovery of the error boosts the cost of the proposed tax cuts to $420 -- well beyond the $350 billion limit that senators had imposed on themselves while writing a $2.2 trillion budget governing tax and spending bills... A spokeswoman for [Democratic Sen. Max] Baucus said tax experts calculated the cost to the Treasury as if the policy applied to dividends paid out of current-year earnings -- the intent of the amendment drafted by Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla. Due to a drafting error, the tax cut actually covered dividends based on accumulated earnings."

"The Bush administration launched an aggressive campaign yesterday to pressure House leaders to abandon their version of an investor tax cut in favor of the one the Senate approved Thursday night. Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans held a joint teleconference with two junior members of the House's GOP leadership... The exchange highlights how deeply divided House, Senate and administration Republicans remain over the tax bill... The Senate narrowly passed a $350 billion tax cut that includes the centerpiece of ... Bush's economic program: a full repeal of taxes on dividends. But to squeeze that repeal into a $350 billion, 10-year package -- compared with Bush's original $726 billion proposal -- the Senate would phase in the dividend repeal over two years and then allow it to disappear after 2006... Spurning Bush's call to 'end the double taxation of dividends,' [the House] passed a simpler plan to lower capital gains and dividend taxes to the same 15-percent rate for most taxpayers."

"The Senate bill chops dividend taxes in half this year, suspends them entirely in 2004, 2005 and 2006, and restores them in 2007, at a total cost of $124 billion. Democrats derided the dividend tax suspension, saying it would come at the expense of married couples whose tax breaks were scaled back. 'Americans today who otherwise will receive the relief on the marriage penalty contained in this bill are going to be subsidizing and paying for, in effect, these tax-free dividends," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.'"

WashPost reports: "The Republican-controlled House yesterday pushed through an 11-year, $550 billion tax cut that includes big reductions for corporate dividends and capital gains, setting the stage for a difficult and uncertain fight with the Senate over Resident Bush's top domestic priority. The House voted 222 to 203 to cut income tax rates and provide tax breaks for married couples, parents and small businesses that invest in new equipment. Yet the heart of the bill, and its most controversial component, is the provision to reduce to 15 percent the tax rate on dividends and capital gains made on the sale of property and stocks... The bill would drop the top income tax rate on dividends from U.S. companies to 15 percent, compared with the current 38.6 percent. The measure would not extend the benefit to dividends from foreign-owned companies, a provision that sparked heavy lobbying this week by overseas firms."

CNN reports: "With President [sic] Bush exhorting lawmakers to support his economic plan, Senate Democrats on Tuesday unveiled a rival measure, one that would offer tax credits to families and businesses, aid to states, but without a key provision sought by the White House: the elimination of taxes on dividends. The Democratic plan, presented by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle at a news conference, has an estimated 10-year price tag of about $152 billion -- far less than the $726 billion originally sought by Bush. Daschle called it 'fair, fast-acting and fiscally responsible,' and said a family of four earning about $50,000 a year would see federal taxes reduced by an average of $1,630 this year."

"Sen. James Jeffords criticized Resident Bush's tax cut proposal Saturday, saying the debate reminded him of two years ago when he decided to leave the Republican Party. 'Millions of Americans need help,' the Vermont independent said in the Democratic Party's weekly radio address. 'Yet, the president [sic] insists on a tax cut that hurts those who need help most, and helps those who need it least...And again, those who are expressing their reservations are being vilified for taking stands of conscience,' he said. 'This happened in 2001 when I made my decision to leave the Republican Party, and it is sad for me to watch it happen again. When did standing on principle, speaking your conscience and representing your constituents become unacceptable in certain Republican circles?' Jeffords... said he made a mistake by supporting Bush's first tax cut proposal in 2001. 'Time has proven those words wrong, and we have massive job losses and a soaring deficit to show for it,' he said."

From Reuters: "With Resident Bush pressing a reluctant Congress to approve big new tax cuts, Democrats on Saturday renewed criticisms of the plan as a sop to the rich that will do little to help the weak U.S. economy. 'They can dress up this tax cut any way they want and it's still just that -- a tax cut for the wealthiest one percent of Americans that does nothing to create jobs and will only sink our nation further into debt,' Ohio Democratic Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones said in the party's weekly radio address."

"Bush and his allies in business are launching a nationwide campaign to pressure reluctant lawmakers to vote for his tax cut, with Bush planning to travel heavily to strategic states in his first big push on a domestic issue since the run-up to the war... The White House is also planning hardball tactics. The senior official said Republican emissaries plan to visit Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who was a party to the deal for a ceiling of $350 billion, and say, 'You've let the president and the party down. What're you going to do about it?' The administration is calling the travel program 'Flood the Zone,' a football analogy, and top officials will be featured at 80 events in 30 states this week and next... Some of the appearances are to reward lawmakers who have stuck with Bush, others are to encourage those who might switch, and some are to punish those who appear determined to cut the size of his tax cut."

"Six in 10 Americans say they are against more tax cuts when the country is at war and already faces budget deficits, according to an AP poll. Still, half of all Americans say their taxes are too high... 61% say it would be better to hold off on additional tax cuts right now to avoid making budget deficits worse and ensure there is adequate money to pay for the war. Half that many, 31%, said they think it is more important to pass more tax cuts to give people more money to spend and to stimulate the economy, said the poll. 'I think they need to figure out how to pay for the war,' said Joseph Ames, a 28-year-old cook from Boise, Idaho, who considers himself a political independent. 'They need to broaden their search to see where and who is actually affected by these tax cuts. I hear a lot of talk about the little man getting stomped on.'... Three of four Democrats said it would be better to wait."

The Busheviks obviously learned nothing from the Jim Jeffords debacle, when they muscled him so hard that he quit the GOP. Now four Republican Senators are standing firm in opposition to Bush's $726 Billion tax giveaway - John McCain (Ariz.), George V. Voinovich (Ohio), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) "'They don't want moderates to have a victory,' said Chafee, one of the Senate's most liberal Republicans. Republican activists are applying the most pressure on Snowe. Several conservative columnists have accused her of risking a solid economic recovery and undermining the resident. Some Senate GOP leaders are urging the White House and congressional Republicans to refrain from applying too much pressure, reminding them that Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) left the party in 2001 because he felt party leaders treated him poorly."

Two years ago, Bush pushed a $1.35 TRILLION tax giveaway through Congress, without the slightest peep from the "budget hawks" who demanded balanced budgets from President Clinton. Two years later, we're finally hearing a squawk from former Senators Bob Kerrey (D-NE), Sam Nunn (D-GA), and Warren B. Rudman (R-NH); former Treasury Secretaries Peter G. Peterson (R) and Robert E. Rubin (D); and Federal Reserve Chair Paul A. Volcker. They write: "Congress cannot simply conclude that deficits don't matter. Over the long term, deficits matter a great deal. They lower future economic growth by reducing the level of national savings that can be devoted to productive investments. They raise interest rates higher than they would be otherwise. They raise interest payments on the national debt. They reduce the fiscal flexibility to deal with unexpected developments. If we forget these economic consequences, we risk creating an insupportable tax burden for the next generation."

David Broder writes for PentaPost: "Under the shadow of war with Iraq, the House and Senate last week fought a series of skirmishes over the federal budget for next year. One big, overriding question was at stake: Would Bush and the Republican majorities in Congress step up to the costs of battle, of homeland defense and of national obligations at home, or would they pass the costs on to future generations? The answer, sadly, is that youngsters yet unborn will see their choices limited and their prospects blighted by the decision of today's politicians to press ahead with an unaffordable tax cut even while the costs of war and reconstruction make earlier spending estimates wildly unrealistic."

A bipartisan group of Senators is in the process of developing a 'compromise' on Bush's tax cut proposal. They are closing in on a $326 billion tax cut, and could come to agreement sometime over the next 24 hours. $326 billion in new, massive, permanent tax cuts that will primarily benefit the most wealthy is no compromise at all. If the Senate agrees to this figure and the House agrees to Bush's plan in full - the likely result will be hundreds of billions of dollars more in irresponsible tax cuts at a time of war and recession. ACTION: Call your senators (202-224-3121) to urge them to oppose Bush's irresponsible economic plan, and to NOT make a false compromise. It is especially critical that the following senators are contacted immediately: Breaux (D-LA) Baucus (D-MT) Nelson (D-NE) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Snowe (R-ME) Collins (R-ME) Voinovich (R-OH) Chaffee (R-RI) DeWine (R-OH) and Specter (R-PA).

Here is a never-before-seen Rosie O'Donnell interview of George W. Bush. Rosie tries to understand how Bush's tax plan will affect average Americans, but runs up against a brick wall of obfuscation, diversion, and 1970's re-runs like the 6 Million Dollar Man and Mr. T.

On Larry King (2-6-03), Bill Clinton denounced Bush's tax cuts: "They're too heavily weighted for people who don't need them like me and you. So we're building the long-term deficits without getting short-term stimulus. What I think ought to be done is at the top rate on the last year's tax cut ought to be frozen. We've already gotten 10 or $15,000 more than - ten times more than the average person got out of the last one. Then this whole thing ought to be reworked, and I think there ought to be a one or two year tax cut concentrated to tax relief to middle income and lower middle income people, and the investment incentives for small businesses and others that will get the economy going... Everybody else is being asked to sacrifice for this war on terror, and you and I are getting a tax cut from the Social Security retirement fund of middle class people. It's not right. We don't need it and you know it's not right. It can't be justified and it's not good economics."

The Washington Post has bent over for Bush for 4 years. But now they are pissed. "Imagine that Bush had a plan to dramatically reshape the federal tax system, eliminating taxes on investment income for most taxpayers, making the tax structure less progressive and providing a boon to the wealthiest Americans. You might think he would mention it during his SOTU address. You might think he would call it by its name: radical tax reform. It turns out that Mr. Bush has such an audacious plan, but he has left it to his Treasury Department and to his 2004 budget proposal, which was released yesterday, to spell it all out. It's being wheeled into town inside a Trojan horse of private savings accounts. That doesn't make it any less radical... His latest proposal is one more indication of his administration's recklessness when it comes to the future fiscal health of the nation." Impeach Bush Now!

Jay Bookman writes, "The best way to analyze Bush's proposed $670 billion tax cut is to ask the most basic question of all: Where's the money going, and where's the money coming from? More bluntly, who wins and who loses? In this case, the answers to both questions are clear. To finance this tax cut, we would have to borrow enormous sums of money from our children and grandchildren, literally mortgaging their futures without their knowledge or approval. They would be the losers. It's going to come out of their pockets and purses. Having robbed the future, we would then turn around and give the proceeds of that theft to our wealthiest contemporaries, people today who are already doing considerably better than most of our children ever will... It's not anti-rich to note such a thing. It's just the plain simple truth... It is hard to conceive of a reason for indebting our children to further enrich people who don't need the money." It ain't right - it's Republican!

Paul Krugman writes: "For example: On Saturday, in his weekly radio address, George W. Bush declared that 'the tax relief I propose will give 23 million small-business owners an average tax cut of $2,042 this year.' That remark is intended to give the impression that the typical small-business owner will get $2,000. But as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, most small businesses will get a tax break of less than $500; about 5 million of those 23 million small businesses will get no break at all. The average is more than $2,000 only because a small number of very wealthy businessmen will get huge tax cuts. So the latest round of Bush tax cuts, like the previous round, mainly provides benefits to the very, very well off - and once again the administration is shamelessly misrepresenting the content of its own policies. But aside from the honor and integrity thing, should we care?"

TomPaine.com writes: "Let's have a real debate about class in America. That's just what the people screaming 'class warfare' fear most, so bring it on. Bush's recent tax proposal is warmed-over Reaganomics spiced with enough audacity, he hopes, to hide the rot. Economists, pols and pundits have panned The plan 'may be the least defensible policy ever,' one critic, an advisor to GOP administrations since Nixon, told The Washington Post's David Broder. With critics like that, no wonder the president and his apologists are wielding the 'class warfare' charge so aggressively. It's a canard meant to deflect criticism and curtail debate, a slur meant to paint its target as Marxist. George W. Bush railing against 'class warfare' is like Trent Lott deploring liberals for 'playing the race card.'"

The AP reports: "Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Bush's plan to eliminate taxes on corporate dividends will do little or nothing to improve the nation's economy. 'I would not have done it,' he said. Speaking out for the first time since being forced from his post, O'Neill said some of the money from the president's $674 billion tax-cut plan would be better spent to shore up Social Security."

Ellen Goodman writes: "I'm delighted that our commander in chief is warning the country to be wary of warmongers. It isn't what I expect from George W. Bush at this moment in time, but so it goes. The problem is that Bush is talking about domestic warfare, not international. He wants the role as peacemaker for civilian hostilities, not military. The war games began even before he announced the $674 billion tax cut package. In a preemptive strike, he said that his opponents - those folks who think a tax break for the rich is, um, a tax break for the rich - would foment 'class warfare'... The Bush administration figures that the couple earning $40,000 who get a $1,333 tax cut won't begrudge a $10,244 tax cut to the couple earning $500,000. More to the point, they won't figure what they'll lose in federal programs. As for the folks too poor to pay taxes? These are, after all, the Americans that The Wall Street Journal called 'lucky duckies.'"

Reuters reports, "George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney each stand to reap thousands of dollars in savings from Bush's proposal on Tuesday to eliminate taxes on stock dividends. Based on income reported in his tax returns for 2001, Bush would have saved $16,511 on dividend payments of $43,805 if his new proposal had been in effect for the year. Cheney, who had dividends of $278,103 in 2001, would have saved $104,823. The estimated savings were derived by using a tax-savings calculator on the Internet site of the Heritage Foundation think-tank (www.heritage.org)."

Molly Ivins writes, "According to Kevin Phillips, 1% of investors pocketed 42% of the stock-market gains between 1989 and 1997, while the top 10% of the population took 86%. These people need a tax cut! They haven't been getting their share! -- According to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, the effect of eliminating dividend taxation is that the average benefit for those making less than $10,000 would be $6, and average benefit for those making more than $1 million would be $45,098. Quick, high-schoolers, let's practice up for the those SATs by figuring out by what percentage $45,098 is bigger than $6. -- Bush also wants to accelerate the income-tax cuts slated for 2006. Look at this folly. The top 5% of taxpayers would get 70% of the benefits on that one. The bottom 80% would get 6.5% of the benefits. Ditto with accelerating the 2004 tax cuts: 64.4% to the top 5% of taxpayers; 7.7% to the bottom 80%."

WashPost reports, "Key Republican senators are raising objections to Bush's $670 billion tax cut proposal, an early sign that the White House will face a tougher fight than it did on two previous rounds of tax reductions. Although Bush and his aides have signaled they intend to fight fiercely, at least five GOP senators have now voiced serious doubts about Bush's plan, especially the centerpiece elimination of the dividend tax." These include John McCain (R-AZ), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), George Voinovich (R-OH), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME). Among Democrats, only Zell Miller (D-GA) supports Bush's plan. So now the dividend provision is being seen as a bargaining chip for a different tax giveaway to the rich - capital gains.

WashPost reports, "Bush's 10-year, $674 billion economic growth package -- coupled with a war with Iraq -- would push the federal budget deficit well into record territory next year, and possibly as high as $350 billion, private-sector budget forecasters said yesterday. Measured against the size of the economy, a $350 billion deficit would still be smaller than the deficits of the late 1980s and early 1990s. But in sheer dollar terms, it would easily eclipse the $290 billion record set in 1992, the last year of George H.W. Bush's administration. It also would be a steep fall from the record $236 billion surplus of 2000. Moreover, the deficit's rapid rise is coming just a few years before the baby-boom generation begins to make itself felt on federal spending, said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's DRI. 'I don't think it's a near-term concern,' Wyss said. 'But people are starting to think about it as a real long-term issue.'"

The rightwing American Enterprise Institute and liberal Economic Policy Institute agree: Bush's new tax plan is not a "tax cut", but a radical shift in the philosophy of taxation. The purpose is to relieve corporations and rich people of the taxes on their dividends. The cost of that shift is a heavier burden for wage earners. Analysts also agree that the plan will do nothing to create jobs or improve the economy. It's just another Reverse Robin Hood from the Bush gang.

New Republic writes, "In 2001, Bush successfully sold a $1.6 trillion tax cut by promising that it would not preclude generous increases in social spending and a virtual elimination of the national debt. Early in 2002, those promises were already coming undone. But did Bush scale back his tax cut? No, he persuaded Congress to pass an additional $114 billion in business tax breaks as 'economic stimulus.' Now, with the federal budget deep in debt for years to come and the administration still facing the potential costs of a war with Iraq and a prescription-drug benefit, you might think Bush would seek to restore a semblance of fiscal sanity. Instead, he is demanding yet another $674 billion in additional tax cuts. Of the many dishonesties surrounding Bush's latest economic stimulus plan, undoubtedly the most important is the notion that it is, in any meaningful sense, an economic stimulus plan."

Molly Ivins writes, "the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers, those who make over $356,000 a year, will get almost 50% of the benefit of eliminating the tax on dividends and 45% of the money from accelerating the rate cuts. The 80% of the households making less than $73,000 a year would get less than 10% of the new tax breaks. The Bushies have various ways of justifying this monstrosity, none of which holds up under scrutiny. The first claim is that the rich pay more in taxes in the first place. Well, yeah, they do: They have more money. The richest 1% have 18% of all the pretax income and they pay 36% of all personal income taxes. But one of the many disingenuous tricks with statistics you will see used by the Soak the Poor school is to ignore the rest of the tax burden. Most of us actually pay more in payroll taxes than we do in income taxes, but FICA taxes cut OFF at $87,000... And of course the sales tax is notoriously regressive."

"Audacious was the word used by the Wall Street Journal on January 7, to describe the new Bush economic plan. Got that right. The economy is suffering, millions are out of work, and George Bush wants to hand over hundreds of billions of dollars in PERMANENT TAX CUTS for those who need it least. This giveaway won't even boost the economy. This economy is not hurting because the rich have too little money. Who will pay for this largesse for the wealthy? You will - in higher taxes at the state and local level, in overcrowded classrooms, in unrepaired highways, in more homeless people and in cuts in Medicare and public health care clinics. Tell your Member of Congress to say NO to the latest Bush giveaway and YES to a real economic stimulus plan that helps all Americans." Send a message to Congress.

NY Times reports, "A number of moderate Senate Democrats who were instrumental in helping Bush pass a tax cut in 2001 said today that they opposed eliminating the federal tax on dividend payments, clouding the Congressional prospects for the central feature of the new Bush economic plan." John Breaux (D-LA) said the dividend tax cut would have to be "replaced and/or dramatically scaled down." "The support of Mr. Breaux is considered crucial to passage of any economic stimulus legislation by the Senate, where Republicans have the barest majority. In 2001 he helped the White House win 12 Democratic votes for tax cuts." Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who voted for the 2001 tax cut, described the president's plan as "a nonstarter." "Right now," Mrs. Feinstein said, "I don't know of any Democrat who's going to vote for it." Meanwhile, Hammer DeLay wants to rush a much BIGGER tax giveaway through the House.

Paul Krugman writes, "Instead of a temporary measure, we get a permanent tax cut. The price tag of the overall plan is a whopping $600 billion, yet less than $100 billion will arrive in the first year. The Democratic plan, with an overall price tag of only $136 billion, actually provides more short-run stimulus. And instead of helping the needy, the Bush plan is almost ludicrously tilted toward the very, very well off. If you have stocks in a 401(k), your dividends are already tax-sheltered; this proposal gives big breaks only to people who have lots of stock outside their retirement accounts. More than half the benefits would go to people making more than $200,000 per year, a quarter to people making more than $1 million per year. ('Class warfare!' shouted the claque.) Even the administration's economists barely pretend that this proposal has anything to do with short-run stimulus. Instead they sell it as the answer to various other problems. (It slices! It dices! It purees!)"