US Newswire: "On Monday, July 19, nearly 3,000 people from 50 states will file a lawsuit in the United States District Court, in Washington DC, in defense of their First Amendment Right to retain their federal tax money until their grievances are redressed. During the last five years, 14,592 people have petitioned the President and every member of Congress for a Redress of Grievances relating to: a) The war powers clauses of the Constitution and the Iraq Resolution, and b) The taxing clauses of the Constitution and the direct, un- apportioned tax on labor. c) The money clauses of the Constitution and the national debt. d) The 'privacy' clauses of the Constitution and the US Patriot Act. The only remedy sought by the People has been answers to certain questions." As none of these questions has been answered, the group is demanding the right to withhold taxes.

Bush is trying to whip up voter anger against Kerry by charging that Kerry might overturn the tax cuts initiated in 2001. But this, like most of Bush's political moves of late, is backfiring loudly. A new survey reveals that only 39% of Americans think the tax cuts should be permanent.61% think a balanced budget trumps tax cuts; 59% say the cuts were either ineffectual or actually hurt the economy; and, in the biggest blow to Bush and his rich pals: 55% of Americans think the tax cuts should be REPEALED for people making over $200,000.

"The 73-year-old Buffett said Berkshire's taxes rose more than eleven-fold to $3.3 billion from 1995 to 2003, as profits rose ten-fold to $8.15 billion. During the same period, federal income taxes paid by all U.S. companies fell by 16 percent, to $132 .."We hope our taxes continue to rise in the future -- it will mean we are prospering -- but we also hope that the rest of corporate America antes up along with us," said Buffett...'Tax breaks for corporations -- and their investors, particularly large ones -- were a major part of the administration's 2002 and 2003 initiatives,' Buffett said. 'If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning.'"

"Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, said on Thursday that Congress should make President Bush's tax cuts permanent only if it made up for the lost revenue with cuts in spending or other tax increases... Mr. Greenspan, urged lawmakers to examine cuts in mandatory entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. The entitlement programs are far more sensitive politically, and Mr. Bush has just enacted a law that will add prescription drug benefits to Medicare at a cost of $540 billion over 10 years."

Paul Craig Roberts writes, "A child born in America today is $124,000 in debt the moment he draws his first breath. The newborn's inherited debt grows daily. Upon reaching working age, an enormous debt awaits. How does a newborn get into debt prior to having a mortgage, credit card and car payment? Easy. Government assigns each newborn child a share of its debt. $24,000 is the newborn's share of the accumulated $7 trillion federal debt. $100,000 is the newborn's share of unfunded Social Security, Medicare and veterans' health care benefits... The US tax burden is already so high that Americans are choosing to have fewer children. Thus, the government's red ink and unfunded liabilities are growing relative to the population. The outlook might be worse than even Mr. Walker realizes. The two-year cost in red ink of the US invasion of Iraq is $150-200 billion... Moreover, Iraq is merely the down payment on the Bush administration's plans to reconstruct the entire Muslim Middle East."

In Saturday's Democratic radio address, Rep. Charlie Stenholm (D-TX) denounced Bush's massive deficits. "The $323 billion we will spend this year for interest on our $6.7 trillion national debt represents a 'debt tax' that must be paid by all future generations and can never be repealed," he said. "Continuing to run up debt will ensure that we and our children and our grandchildren are overtaxed for the rest of our lives." Hey Dems - "debt tax" is good, but it's too arcane. Call the massive Reagan-Bush-Bush debts a BIRTH TAX on every newborn infant!

Here's a story that got precious little play in the media: "As the Bush administration draws up plans to simplify the tax system, it is also refining arguments for why it may be necessary to shift more of the tax load onto lower-income workers. Economists at the Treasury Department are drafting new ways to calculate the distribution of tax burdens among different income classes, which are expected to highlight what administration officials see as a rising tax burden on the rich and a declining burden on the poor. The White House Council of Economic Advisers is also preparing a report detailing the concentration of the tax burden on the affluent and highlighting problems with the way tax burdens are calculated for the poor." So reports the Washington Post.

E. J. Dionne . has discovered the new plan to save Dubya's tax cuts for the wealthy...make low income workers pay more! According to Dionne, the Wall Street Journal editorial writers have their knickers in a knot because "those with incomes of more than $500,000 a year account for 28 percent of total tax revenue" compared to the "lucky ducky "who earns $12,000 a year and ends up 'paying a little less than 4 percent of income in taxes.'" (No mention what percentage of income the poor wealthy souls are paying in taxes.) Of course, that's just income taxes. As Dionne points out, FICA and sales taxes take a bigger chunk of middle and low incomes than from large ones...but those aren't the taxes the supply siders want to cut. Dionne notes that it's true that the wealthy are paying more in taxes these days. After all, the average income for the top fifth has gone up 157 percent. The bottom fifth's income was stagnant, so their taxes haven't gone up. Those lucky duckies.

Studies on the economic effects of tax cuts and tax increases have revealed that high taxes don't impede economic growth, and lowering taxes doesn't increase growth. A more significant factor, according to some recent studies, is how a government spends tax revenues. That's something for Americans to ponder on November 5: will Bush's budget priorities help or harm the economy? And a good way to answer that question is to ask another question: Is our economy in better or worse shape than it was before January 20, 2001?

Julia King writes: "Despite a shaky economy, a looming war, despite rising numbers of uninsured Americans, somehow there are still politicians who peddle tax cuts as cure-alls. It's about time we clear something up: When a candidate says, 'I'll lower your taxes,' he's put forth only half of an idea. The other half of that idea involves cutting programs that could be important to many of us... Few politicians seem willing to admit that slashing taxes means shrinking public service and even public safety. Yet this is the time to connect the dots, to thread together rhetoric and reality. It's a long list of things that make a society -- our society -- livable.... Is there ever mismanagement of public funds? Sure, and it deserves attention. But, seriously, when's the last time you saw a park naturalist in an Armani suit or behind the wheel of a Rolls Royce? For the most part, government employees are not whooping it up on your tax dollars."

Alexander Bolton writes in The Hill, "In a series of little-noticed executive orders intended to ease the tax burden on corporate America, the Bush administration has implemented a number of new policies that will provide corporations with billions of dollars in tax relief without the consent of Congress. The actions include new regulations, notices of new rulemaking, and tax collection policies on issues ranging from tax-free compensation for corporate executives to tax deductions for 'intangible' assets to greatly expanded tax accounting flexibility for small- and medium-sized businesses. Many of the business-oriented actions taken by the Treasury Department since the beginning of the year are so arcane that few members of Congress, including those with jurisdiction over tax policy, were familiar with the new regulations and revenue procedures."

US companies that "move" to Bermuda "are still traded on the NYSE, they still can sell products in America, their offices still have all the benefits of security provided by the American law enforcement agencies, the American Court System, and the U.S. Military. Several... still receive very lucrative U.S. Government contracts. They can still lobby congress, they can still do every single thing they could do before the move, but they just don't have to pay those oppressive U.S. taxes. Now let me get this straight. We're fighting a war right now to protect our very way of life. Our budget is back in deficit again. The government is on the border of being forced to default on the national debt. In the midst of all this turmoil, the patriotic response of these companies is to buy a mailbox in Bermuda so that they don't have to pay their portion of these expenses... How in the world can these people live with themselves?" So writes Brian Balta in the Hoosier Review of Indiana U.

The NY Times reports, "Democrats in Congress and around the country are promoting legislation that would prevent American companies from avoiding taxes by reincorporating in offshore tax havens. The legislation is driven by public anger over the collapse of the Enron Corporation, which escaped millions of dollars in taxes by creating subsidiaries in countries that are tax havens, and has gained so much momentum that it stands a chance of becoming law this year, despite the opposition of Republican leaders in the House of Representatives and the lack of enthusiasm in the Bush administration." The issue is hot in Connecticut, where Rep. Jim Maloney (D) is pounding Rep. Nancy Johnson (R) for failing to push loophole-closing legislation through her House committee. And in California, Gov. Gray Davis (D) is hammering millionaire Bill Simon (R) "for founding a company in the 1990's that set up a tax shelter in the Cayman Islands." You go, Democrats!

Paul Krugman writes in the NY Times, "The latest budget news is worse than even the most dour pessimists had thought possible. But the unfolding fiscal disaster hasn't yet penetrated the public's consciousness - and the administration is trying to exploit that window of ignorance. In fiscal 2000 the federal budget was in surplus by $236 billion. This year's deficit will be more than $100 billion, possibly more than $150 billion... Now that we're in fiscal trouble, you might think that it's time to reconsider tax cuts that haven't happened yet - especially when more than half of those future cuts will go to only 1 percent of the population... But they still hope to lock in tax cuts for the rich, by eliminating the 'sunset' provision in last year's tax bill - the same provision that was used to help hide the tax cut's true cost." Where is the OUTRAGE???

"Starting Saturday, the government is free. For the rest of the year, you pay nothing for police protection. You pay nothing for the military. You pay nothing for Medicare or Medicaid. You pay nothing to keep our rivers navigable, our air paths clear, our highways patched. You pay nothing to keep our courts open, our campgrounds safe, our water clean. You pay nothing to house the poor or feed the hungry or clothe the needy. You pay nothing to finance our wars on cancer or poverty or terrorism. You pay nothing to finance government - local or state or federal. No property taxes. No sales taxes. No income taxes. A ridiculous statement? Sure, but it's no more ridiculous than the reverse, which is to say that until Saturday every penny you earned this year has gone to pay taxes. Yet that's what many conservatives will be proclaiming in news releases, legislative speeches and newspaper articles." So writes Michael Gardner.

The I.R.S. said that Americans in far greater numbers than it had once thought - 1 to 2 million!! - were evading taxes by secretly depositing money in tax havens like the Cayman Islands and withdrawing it using credit cards. "These people — most believed to have incomes that would put them among the top 1 percent of taxpayers — 'are using offshore cards to pay for living expenses,' the I.R.S. said, from groceries to cars to college tuition for their children. Offshore accounts would be of little use to people whose wages are reported to the I.R.S. by their employers. But entertainers, business owners, investors and others who control what is reported to the I.R.S. can use offshore accounts to hide fees, profits, dividends, interest and capital gains." Yet Bush wants to cut taxes even more for these tax thieves, with encouragement by Grover Norquist -- the anti-tax warrior for corporations and the wealthy. Where is the outrage???

Mark Shields on offshore tax evasion: "To call these capitalist expatriates 'freeloaders' is too kind. They are corporate parasites, too many of whom after Sept. 11 in order to make a quick buck, wrapped themselves and their products in Old Glory in a loathsome display of crass and cheesy opportunism... And what does the White House of our commander in chief have to say to these American companies whose chieftains scheme to escape paying even one dime toward the modest salaries of those warriors who defend their families? 'The White House has said nothing about these moves and their effect on tax revenues' ... the Bush crowd is so worshipful of lower taxation that some moral paralysis prevents any criticism of even a screw-your-neighbor-do-it-yourself 'tax cut.' Does not the systematic abuse of hard-working Americans who obey the laws, pay their taxes and who would never consider bartering their citizenship for a few lousy bucks outrage anybody in George W.'s inner or outer circle?"

Molly Ivins writes, "In response to President [sic] George W. Bush's call to all Americans to give service to our country, some are enlisting in the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, Senior Corps or the armed services. Others have begun putting in their suggested 4,000 hours at a variety of charitable endeavors, through everything from the volunteer fire department to mentoring programs. And still other Americans are moving their companies to Bermuda and the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes. Isn't that special? The New York Times reports a 'megatrend' among American companies to incorporate in Bermuda in order to sharply reduce their taxes... we seem to be entering a 'taxes are for suckers' era: Perhaps we should call it the Leona Helmsley Movement after the hotelier who observed, 'Only little people pay taxes.'"

After the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994, "The number of Americans with million-dollar incomes more than doubled from 1995 through 1999, as their salaries and their profits from stocks soared... The percentage of their income that went to federal income taxes, however, fell by 11%... For those with million-dollar incomes, the share of their income that went to taxes fell to 27.9% in 1999, from 31.4% in 1995. For those Americans who did not make a million dollars, the portion of their income going to taxes edged up in those years, to 12.8% from 12.5%... The capital gains tax cut of 1997 appeared to favor the 400 richest taxpayers most of all. Harvesting 7% of all capital gains in 1998, these very rich Americans paid just 22% of their incomes in taxes that year, down from 30% in 1994... Wealth in America is more highly concentrated today than at any time since 1929." So reports the NY Times.

"Canceling George W. Bush's prized tax cut is more popular than keeping it — especially if doing so would help avoid a deficit, finds an ABCNEWS.com poll. Fifty-two percent of adults say they'd support killing the tax cut 'if doing so helped to avoid a deficit in the federal budget,' while 32 percent would want the tax cut to go ahead — a 20-point margin in favor of canceling it... Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., last week urged dropping the tax cut for families with incomes of more than $130,000 a year." Bu$h says he'll cancel the tax giveawy "over my dead body." Politically-speaking, that may be the truth!

"Aside from distorting Mr. Daschle's speech, these statements misunderstand the current economic challenge. Nobody advocates raising this year's taxes; indeed Mr. Daschle supports stimulative tax cuts. The argument is over the long-run effects of the 10-year tax cut that President Bush secured last year. But that is an issue the tax-cutters refuse to face. Pressed to discuss the 10-year outlook by his interviewer, Tim Russert of NBC, Mr. O'Neill parried: 'You know, if you really want to deal in fantasies, I don't know why you stop with 10 years. Why don't you talk about 20 years or 30 years?' Awkwardly for Mr. O'Neill, the Bush administration had no trouble thinking 10 years ahead when it designed its tax package." So writes the Washington Post.

Bu$h "mocked Democrats on Saturday for allegedly arguing that Mr. Bush's expensive, long-term tax cuts caused the recession. But that isn't the argument. The real allegation, which Mr. Bush did not parry because he cannot, is that the tax cuts have pushed the federal budget from surplus back into deficit, thereby squeezing the government's ability to beef up military spending and homeland defense while taking care of the nation's other needs -- notably, the long-term shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare and the immediate gaps in health insurance for more than 40 million Americans. Many of the Bush tax cuts have yet to take effect and could be postponed or canceled, yet Mr. Bush, in an interesting twist of language, now insists that any such postponement would amount to a tax increase... [Bu$h] assured the nation that it could afford the tax cuts... 'Not over my dead body' is memorable and dramatic. It won't change the math."

While Americans are really dying in Afghanistan in the fight against terrorism, Bu$h trivialized their deaths by pretending to put his own body on the line for tax cuts. While distorting Tom Daschle's economic plan, Bu$h declared: "Not over my dead body will they raise your taxes!" Worse yet, Bu$h made this ludicrous declaration while calling for "bipartisan unity." Hey George, if your tax giveaway to the wealthy was really going to stimulate the economy, why has unemployment risen from 4% under Clinton to 5.8% overall in December, 10.2% for blacks - even AFTER the Republican Congress passed your $1.35 TRILLION tax giveaway to the rich? In 1988, Bu$h the Smarter declared, "Read my lips - no new taxes!" Of course, that promise was a lie, and Bu$h $r. lost the next election to Bill Clinton. Can Bu$h the Dumber escape a similar fate by upping the rhetorical ante? Not likely! As the saying goes, "Like father, like son!"

"Over the holidays, members of Congress might try asking their constituents whether it makes sense for them to argue about the proper mix of taxes and spending to stimulate the economy without considering the question of how much is needed to combat terrorism at home. Chances are, they will be told quickly and firmly that there should be a single, financially responsible package. Chances are that if given the choice between tax cuts and adequate defenses against biological terrorism, plane hijacking and other domestic threats, the public will opt for the defenses." So writes the NY Times.

"The senators who larded the bill in committee ought to feel ashamed of themselves, but they're not the only ones. It seems to us that lobbyists such as Mr. Kies and clients such as General Electric and IBM also bear some responsibility. Normally in Washington we assume that such corporations will grasp for whatever they can get; it's up to those in Congress to resist their more egregious graspings. But do the chairmen of GE and IBM really want to pursue their narrow self-interest at a time when everyone else is being asked to think of the common good -- at a time of war? Imagine the stir it would cause, and the impact it could have, if just one of them said, 'Better spend the money on the troops. We'll be back when the war is over.' It's not too late for them to show what patriotism might really mean." So writes the Washington Post.

"The fat years of the 90's have left us woefully unprepared for a deep recession that's likely to take a particularly large toll on the poor and lower-wage workers. Given all this, a 'stimulus' plan like the one that passed last month in the House of Representatives and is being backed by the White House, which confers most of its benefits on large corporations and upper-income households, seems exactly the reverse of what's needed. Large corporations, already reeling from too much capacity, won't be induced to add more. Wealthier households, already spending whatever they want, won't be inspired to spend more. It's the bottom half who are in trouble. They're most likely to spend whatever extra they get. And they desperately need whatever government can supply. At a time of national crisis, when the nation must pull together, it seems only logical that we do what we can to avoid pulling further apart." So writes former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.

"The bill that the Republican leadership squeezed through the House last month would accelerate some of the income tax rate cuts approved but deferred last spring. Senate Republicans at the administration's behest now propose to accelerate all of them, at a five-year cost of $121 billion. Little of that would be stimulative. Most of the money would go to upper-income families not in need and least likely to spend rather than save it, and most would not go even to them until 2003 or thereafter, by which time the administration itself is forecasting that the economy will already have recovered. [They] are using the current slowdown as cover for locking in place a costly and regressive policy. They ought not be allowed to get away with it... If the price of a bill of that little importance is to lock in tax cuts for the rich that will likely do the country long-term fiscal harm, there shouldn't be a bill... Help the victims, or else go home."

"Special-interest zeal to use the national-security crisis as an excuse for huge new upper-income tax breaks continues unabated in Washington, D.C. On a party-line vote, the House on October 24 approved a bloated 'stimulus' tax-cut bill that makes a mockery of the previous bipartisan agreement between congressional leaders and the administration that additional stimulus measures should be temporary and limited to a total of $50 billion to $75 billion. Instead, House Republicans have adopted a laundry list of new tax breaks, some explicitly permanent, that are officially expected to cost a staggering $212 billion over the next three fiscal years--and heaven only knows how much thereafter." So writes Robert McIntyre in the American Prospect.

"The tax cuts pushed by the White House for inclusion in an economic stimulus plan appear to far exceed the $60 billion cost suggested by President Bush, according to preliminary estimates by the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee. All told, the administration's proposals would reduce revenue by between $90 billion and $120 billion in 2002, depending on whether low-cost or high-cost options are chosen. Over 10 years, the tab could run as high as $440 billion for permanent changes in tax law, though the 10-year cost could be as low as $100 billion if only temporary options are chosen." So reports the Washington Post.

"Because Congress acquiesced to the president's tax-cut request, the federal revenues we will need in order to deal with the current double crisis as well as fund significantly higher levels of protective activity in the future will not be there. Unless we act. Federal revenues will be more than $100 billion lower than they would have been over the next 10 years because the president persuaded Congress to reduce the tax rate on incomes over $297,350 a year from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. That's the bad news. The good news is that only a very small piece of this reduction has gone into effect; if Congress acts now, we can produce more than $100 billion in additional revenue with no contractionary short-term economic consequences." So writes Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) in the American Prospect.

"When Abraham Lincoln faced the dissolution of the nation in the early 1860s, he imposed new taxes on the wealthy to help pay to save the Union. When Franklin D. Roosevelt took America to war against the Nazis, he sharply increased taxes on businesses and the rich to help fund that crusade. Now George W. Bush is leading a new battle against international terrorism, and insists that as part of that effort, we need to cut taxes on corporations and the best-off Americans!" So writes Robert McIntyre in the American Prospect.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) has introduced the "First Things First Act," which "would put on hold parts of President Bush's tax cut that benefit the wealthy, thus freeing hundreds of billions of dollars as down payment for domestic priorities. The biggest chunk of the tax cut, 43%, goes to the richest Americans... The First Things First Act would provide more than $340 billion over 10 years by reinstating the top marginal tax rate back to 39.6 % beginning January 1, 2002, which affects the rates of those with income greater than $400,000; freezing the tax rates for the current 30.5% and 35.5% brackets, which affects the rates on income above $90,000 for a single taxpayer and $150,000 for joint filers; and stopping total elimination of the estate tax while allowing small family owned businesses and farms an immediate exemption of up to $4 million." Tell your representatives (202-224-3121) to sign on as co-sponsors!

"Given the change in national priorities sparked by the attacks, [Dick] Gephardt said: 'We well may have to change the fiscal policy over the 10-year horizon, over the 10-year period, and ... make changes in other areas - whether it's spending or taxes. All that needs to be on the table at some point.' Gephardt harshly criticized the 10-year tax cut the Bush administration and Republicans pushed through Congress this spring as being too expensive. 'All of this is not an effort to relive old debates,' he said. 'It's an effort to rethink' everything in light of the attacks in New York and Washington that killed thousands... Gephardt reacted coolly to calls from Bush administration officials to give tax rebates to all wage earners as part of an economic stimulus package, rather than lower-wage earners who did not qualify for them earlier in the year."

Even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Florida's state budget was already some $673 million in the red, due in no small part to Jeb Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Today, the shortfall may exceed $1.4 billion. So, what are we to do? Stop teacher salary talks and put a freeze on hiring, of course! This is the pattern we're going to see throughout the country - as Republican tax cuts turn government surpluses into deficits -- programs for the middle class and the poor will get the axe. This is ALWAYS the Republican Way.

The International Monetary Fund is not known for its progressive policies, to say the least. But even the IMF sees through Bush's tax giveaway, and says it will really cost nearly $2.5 TRILLION over the next 10 years, not $1.35 trillion as claimed by Bush. Hey - maybe Bush will participate in the anti-IMF protests in front of his stolen residence on September 29!

"Tax-rebate checks and weakening corporate tax payments are among the factors likely to force the Treasury Department to borrow $51 billion this quarter. THAT WOULD BE the largest single quarter of borrowing by the government since the beginning of 1996", when Bill Clinton put the federal budget in the black for the first time in decades. "On April 30, Treasury said it expected to pay down $57 billion of the publicly held portion of the national debt during the period. That projection, however, was made before congressional passage of President Bush’s $1.35 trillion tax-cut package."

As tax revenues plummet and the Clinton surpluses turn into another round of Bush deficits, it's time to start demanding the repeal of Bush's tax giveaway to the rich. As NY Times columnist Paul Krugman points out, tax cuts scheduled for 2006 and 2010 will have NO effect on the impending recession. Worse, the tax giveaway has already INCREASED long term interest rates, which will ACCELERATE the recession. Repealing the tax giveaway will reduce interest rates and help prevent a recession. Repeal the tax giveaway now!

"The tax-relief checks that will start arriving in mailboxes next week should have a consumer-warning label: 'Warning: This check is not a 'rebate' of taxes you already paid. It's an advance on the refund you'll get when you file next April.' If it's an advance, you ask, does that mean my refund in April will be $300 smaller than it would have been? And if I'm unlucky enough to owe taxes, does that mean my tax bill will be $300 higher? The answer to both questions is yes. But you'd never guess that from the 1040 you'll fill out next year. It's been designed so that it's nearly impossible to realize how the 2001 rebate checks affect your tax preparation in 2002." Like everything else the Republicans do, the tax refund is a scam - and Americans know it, as the results from the sidebar web poll make clear.

Suddenly, the Washington Post has seen the light about Bush's tax giveaway to the wealthy. "It is, in other words, a fraud. That is the basis on which the tax cut was enacted. The current surplus will not last. The country is headed back to borrow-and-spend. The tax cut hastens the day. The Medicare trust fund is indeed an accounting convention. The tapping of it is nonetheless an omen. Funds that in not very many years will be needed to cover the government's costs, including the cost of Medicare -- and that could be saved in the meantime by paying down debt -- have been used instead to give a tax cut mainly to the rich. If Medicare helps to pay for the tax cut, who then pays for Medicare?" Now when will the Post admit that the whole 2000 election was a fraud, and Bush is a thief?

Bush's $1.35 tax giveaway is a catastrophe waiting to happen - just like Reagan's tax giveaway of 1981. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities explains how the tax giveaway will swallow up the entire projected surplus over the next 10 years, endangering Social Security and Medicare.

In an interview in May with the Financial Times, Treasury Secretary Paul said he "absolutely" supports the elimination of taxes on corporations-- and the shifting of the tax burden to individuals." He also called for the abolition of Social Security and Medicare, on the grounds that "able-bodied adults should save enough on a regular basis so that they can provide for their own retirement, and, for that matter, health and medical needs." In fact, O'Neill believes the U.S. should reconsider the whole purpose of taxation: "National defense is a federal responsibility," Shlaes paraphrases O'Neill as saying, "but all other outlays need review." Join FAIR in writing the media to ask them why Paul O'Neill's radical calls for eliminating corporate taxes and Social Security were not a major news story (links included).

"Almost nothing about the new tax law is irreversible. Even before President Bush signed it this morning with great fanfare at a White House ceremony, the politicians were talking about how to revise it.... Republican leaders in the House of Representatives have said they want to speed up the tax rate reductions and give new tax breaks to businesses, steps made harder by the new Democratic majority in the Senate. Democrats in the Senate want to block some of the cuts in the new law before they take effect. Asked about this at his first news conference as majority leader, Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota said: 'I know we're going to revisit it. I just know that at some point that reality is going to come crashing down on all of us, and we're going to have to deal with it.'" So writes David Rosenbaum in the New York Times.

"In losing $1.35 trillion of federal revenue to George W. Bush's tax cut, the Democrats lost an important battle, but maybe they haven't lost the war... In the 2002 midterm elections and in the 2004 presidential contest, the Democrats could starkly frame the national choices that they so pitifully failed to pose in 2001: Do Americans want better health coverage or tax cuts for millionaires? Do we want better schools or repeal of the estate tax on the top 2 percent of Americans? Throughout the tax debate, polls continued to show that desired social spending is more popular than tax cuts. So the Democrats did not lose the country on this issue; they were simply outmaneuvered inside the Beltway. Properly designed and articulated, tax and spend remains sound politics as well as the necessary instrument of a decent society. Democrats shouldn't run from that. They should wear it as a badge of honor." So writes Robert Kuttner in The American Prospect.

Here's a pithy summary of the 2001 tax bill: it "is kind of like a pinball machine," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group. "A lot of things go on and off." According to the Kansas City Star, "Congress also resorted to budgetary gimmicks and phony accounting that seem excessive even for a federal tax bill. Tax cuts phase in and phase out in seemingly random fashion. A tax deduction for college expenses, for example, would be phased out in 2005 after being fully in effect for only two years... Even more ludicrous is that the country is scheduled to revert to the current tax laws on Dec. 31, 2010. This apparently means, for example, that the estate tax would be fully eliminated for only a single year before being fully restored. This creates a mind-boggling situation for people who are trying to carefully plan their estates and for their heirs." The 2001 tax bill is exhibit A for why we need to sweep ALL Republicans out of office.

"President [sic] Bush's big tax cut is now a reality. So you know what will happen when the president wants to oppose new spending -- say, more money to help the elderly buy prescription drugs. The White House line will be: 'Sorry, we don't have the money.' The response should be: 'What do you mean we, Mr. President?' The money to solve social problems and keep the budget in balance was certainly there when Bush took office. Now a large chunk of the budget surplus is committed to the most deceptive tax cut ever passed by any Congress. This tax bill is so incoherent that it will have to be revisited. That's why the fight over this terrible bill did not end with its passage. The fight is just beginning." So writes Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne.

Our public schools are crumbling, but Republicans took $30 billion out of the budget to give to higher-income parents who send their kids to private schools - including religious schools. Specific provisions include: 1) deducting up to $2,000 annually for "education IRA's"; 2) federal deductibility of section 529 shelters; and 3) a tuition deduction of $4,000. "Critics say the tax benefits in the bill, which President [sic] Bush will sign on Wednesday, are little more than a government subsidy for middle- and upper-income families whose children already attend college in high percentages." These plans also open the door to vouchers for religious schools. If you're struggling to make an underfunded public school work, you should be OUTRAGED. Call your Senators and Representatives (202-224-3121).

Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonprofit research organization with the only nongovernmental computer model able to calculate the distribution of taxes, reported that almost half of those Americans in the bottom 60 percent of income earners -- more than 32 million individuals and families -- will receive no rebates. Nearly 35 million Americans who earn income and file a tax return will receive nothing, the group said. "The people who are excited about this rebate aren't going to get it," said Robert McIntyre, director of the group, citing news stories for which poor workers and students are interviewed about what they would do with the checks. "And the people who aren't excited about it are going to get it." The Republican promise of tax cuts for everyone was just another Big Lie.

Since Newt Gingrich's "Republican Revolutionaries" hijacked Congress in 1994, they have enacted one legislative obscenity after another. But this year's tax bill takes the cake. USA Today highlights some of the absurdities. Just one more reason to sweep ALL Republicans out of office!

"So in the law as now written, heirs to great wealth face the following situation: If your ailing mother passes away on Dec. 30, 2010, you inherit her estate tax-free. But if she makes it to Jan. 1, 2011, half the estate will be taxed away. That creates some interesting incentives. Maybe they should have called it the Throw Momma From the Train Act of 2001." So writes NY Times columnist Paul Krugman.

"From Antigua in the Caribbean to Nauru in the South Pacific, offshore tax havens leach billions of dollars every year in tax revenues from countries around the world. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is backing away from a three-year effort by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to crack down on tax havens. The administration's decision to withdraw American support for essential elements of the effort undermines what had been a successful international campaign...Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill has bowed to a lobbying campaign by anti- tax activists who have wrongly claimed that the O.E.C.D. wants to impose some sort of global regime of high taxes. But the practices the O.E.C.D. opposes are not competitive tax policies designed to benefit businesses in the countries where they apply. On the contrary, the most notorious tax havens do not even extend their minimal tax rates to their own citizens or domestic enterprises." So writes the New York Times editors.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-NY), the sole House Democrat appointed to the tax bill conference, sharply criticized the final bill and the process followed. "The tax bill is a fraud on the American people. They call it a tax bill but it is really a formula for depriving Social Security and Medicare of needed resources The GOP has people thinking they are going to get some big tax reduction, but whatever tax cut low- to moderate- income Americans get under this bill will be dwarfed by its detrimental effects on Social Security, Medicare, other vital programs, and the health of our economy," Rangel said.

With solid Republican backing, Bush is close to shoving his tax cut down our throats, which will reverse eight years of stellar economic growth. "[This] major economic plan makes the economy his... It is no longer Bill Clinton's." writes the Washington Post. Worse still, Bush's tax cut payoff to the rich "spends all the budget surplus that could be used to repair education or health care." Even Republican pollsters see the looming problems for Bush. "[The Republicans] preached about deficits and told Americans not to trust the government, and now they're saying, 'We're going to give you a big tax cut -- trust us,' " Zogby said. "A lot of Americans are saying, 'Doesn't this give us a problem down the road?'" So, tell us something we don't already know folks...

"Lacking the votes to block the $1.35 trillion tax cut moving through Congress, Democrats in the Senate delayed its passage today to make their argument one final time that the plan is fiscally irresponsible and excessively tilted to the wealthy... By insisting on votes on amendments through the evening, Democrats forced Republicans to miss a Republican National Committee gala fund-raising dinner with President Bush... Democratic leaders were unapologetic. 'These issues are too important to say we ought to, just for the convenience of the Senate or the convenience of somebody, try to finish up because it's a neat way to do it by Memorial Day,' said Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader." Call your Democratic Senators (202-224-3121) and encourage them to stall this disastrous tax cut forever!

It doesn't surprise us that the Shrubcheney Foundation to Make the Richer Richer has pushed for its self-aggrandizing fat tax cut. The thing that amazes and appalls us is that ANY normal person elected to public office by his fellow Americans, most of whom make under $50,000/year, would have the audacity and unabashed kissassedness to actually help pass it. We say kick ANY senator or rep. who voted in favor of this cut out in 2002. They are NOT representing the people! Here's their "gift" to the public in an easy to read (and weep) format.

"THE SENATE today is expected to pass and send to conference with the House a bad tax bill that the conferees, or some of them, will then do their utmost to make worse. Republican leaders -- and the president -- want to give the rich an even deeper tax cut than would the Senate bill. To do so they will either have to reduce the already modest benefits the bill would extend to the less well-off, or lie about the cost." So writes the Washington Post.

Over the weekend, when no one was watching, Republicans committed another crime against America. They removed the normal 10-year "sunset" provisions from their tax giveaway to the rich, which will increase the cost by $4.2 Trillion from 2011-2021. So now the $1.35 Trillion tax giveaway will cost $5.5 Trillion. Call your Representatives for free today at 1-800-374-6702 and demand that they Oppose Tax Cuts for the Rich.

"To hear George W. Bush tell it, there is virtually no problem a tax cut can't solve. Economy weak? Tax cuts. Economy Strong? Tax cuts. Credit card debt? Tax cuts. Like children? Tax cuts. Love your spouse? Tax cuts. Saving for college? Tax cuts? High gas prices? Tax cuts. War in the Balkans? Tax cuts..." Dana Milbank of the Washington Post lays out Bush's twisting, turning manipulations of the almighty tax cut "to heal all ills." Go Dana Go!

There are simple, fair ways to stimulate the economy now. The first would be a refundable credit to any American who earned money for the year. This could be addressed by allowing a credit against payroll taxes. A second plan would be to create a credit for homebuyers similar to the tax credit we businesses used to get with the investment tax credit. Either of these proposals would do more to stimulate our sagging economy than the unfair bonus to the rich proposed by the Republicans.

Bush "plans to curtail an international effort to crack down on tax havens, reversing an initiative backed by the administration of President Bill Clinton, in part because of concerns that the effort would lead to higher U.S. taxes. This policy reversal is another disappointment for European allies irked by the Bush administration's rejection of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming…The OECD's secretary-general, Donald Johnston, said Friday that [Treasury Secretary Paul] O'Neill's comments were 'troubling' and reflected a misunderstanding of the goals of the initiative." Said Johnston: "the idea is to go after the secrecy that allows tax avoidance and money laundering." But this would contradict Bush's tax giveaway policy to the wealthy. It would also cut into a big part of the Bush/CIA enterprise. Remember the money-laundering operations of Nugan Hand, BCCI and the Banco Nazionale del Lavoro of Iraqgate?

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), Bill Gates, Sr., Children's Defense Fund Founder Marian Wright Edelman, and AFSCME President Gerald McEntee will be leading a Capitol Hill rally to preserve the Estate Tax on Thursday at noon. The rally will be followed by a Congressional lobby day. This event is sponsored by: Nonprofits to Preserve the Estate Tax, a coalition coordinated by OMB Watch, and Responsible Wealth, a project of United for a Fair Economy. If you're in DC, get involved!

"…[Wealthy] Americans are now setting up an entire bank to make sure no one reveals to the tax man where their money is." Said IRS Consultant Jack Blum: "You pay them several thousand dollars; you get a bank charter. There are some 400 bank headquarters in a shack without a door." Blum says Nauru and other small island countries around the world are doing a booming business selling back licenses to wealthy Americans who want to illegally hide their money...My estimate to you is that the United States is losing $70 billion a year in tax revenue." What's more, "in the middle of the investigation of [tax evasion guru Jerome] Schneider, IRS investigators were stunned to find a prominent congressman, Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., speaking at one of Schneider’s seminars in Canada… In a raid on Schneider's office last month, the IRS seized the names of thousands of his clients who signed up in the Nauru bank scheme and may soon find themselves under investigation."

Is America next to experience the Bush promise of pay back at all cost, the way Texas is? To watch helplessly as our great nation goes through again what it did for the 12 years prior to our last administration, when Reagan and Bush Sr. gave away millions to the rich while diving us further into debt? Is America once again going to be "The nation that can be fooled all the time" by this new breed of Snake-Oil peddler?

"The repeal of the estate tax, once considered a sure thing, may be delayed as much as a decade by a new bipartisan estimate that says it would cost the Treasury at least $250 billion more over 10 years than previously believed...The tax rate would drop slowly, and full repeal would not come until 2011...Republicans had little choice but to draft this belated repeal. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated last week that an immediate repeal of the estate and gift taxes would cost the Treasury $662 billion over 10 years, even though the taxes, if unchanged, would bring in only $410 billion over the same period...Why the $252 billion gap? New schemes to avoid other taxes, including income taxes and capital-gains taxes, that the committee expects to proliferate once the estate and gift levies are gone."

"Dear Senator: I strongly oppose the tax cut that President Bush has proposed. It is far too large, it is irresponsible, and it is fundamentally unfair. The Bush tax cut jeopardizes the nation's ability to meet its domestic and foreign responsibilities, threatens the nation's fiscal stability and security, and inequitably distributes the benefits it provides. Any tax cut enacted into law must be far smaller and much more equitable than the Bush tax cut in order to meet the needs and interests of the American people. Please ensure taxes are fair for ALL and vote against the Bush tax cut." Add your name below.

Bush is haunting old folks' homes, elementary schools, and greeting card factories trying to convince "average Americans" the few measly bucks per week they'll get from his tax cut should excite them. But a new report by Chuck Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity reveals that hundreds of the richest Americans - and one out of 6 corporations worth over $250 million - PAY NO TAXES AT ALL. Also, tens of thousands of people making over $200,000 PAY LESS THAN 12% of their fair share. The total bill to the U.S.? $200 billion! Now Bush's tax plan will insure these elite cheats not only eat cake, but get plenty of frosting, too.

"George W. Bush's tax cut plan has never been distinctive for its content, which is standard-issue conservatism — big tax cuts for the rich, a few crumbs for middle-class families with children the right age, nothing for the poor. What is distinctive is the way the plan has been sold. I can't think of any precedent in the history of American economic policy. Has any previous administration been quite this shameless about misrepresenting the actual content of its own economic plan?" So writes New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

If you want the biggest tax refund possible and before it prudently can be calculated, then you have succeeded in two areas: firstly, you have your idol of greed in the White House and secondly, the shoe of greed is yours, it is too tight but it fits you. Wear it and damn my memories, yours too.

The Social Security system cannot fund baby boomer retirements without some costly changes. But according to Gene Sperling, Shrub "has done worse than just kick the ball down the road by recommending a Social Security Commission. As his tax cut depletes the general revenue surpluses, it depletes the chances for any president or Congress in the near future to pass long-lasting reform." Bush's policies are disastrous in every single way.

According to the latest Newsweek poll, Americans overwhelmingly - 73% to 20% - prefer the Democratic alternative to the Bush plan: a cut of equal or smaller size that would take full effect this year and be aimed more at middle-class Americans. So why haven't you heard this reported anywhere? Because of the complete Republican bias of the corporate media. Here's another fact you won't see reported anywhere but Democrats.com: Bush's DISAPPROVAL rating is now 30%, up from 25% a month ago - which was already the worst rating for a new President. Here's our new campaign slogan: "Bush - the more you know, the more you disapprove."

Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle has proposed a tax plan that would lower the 15% bracket to 10% for all Americans. "Appearing on NBC's Meet the Press, Daschle, D-S.D., said his plan would put an extra $600 in every taxpayer's pocket because it would cut the bottom tax rate everyone pays." In general this amount would still be greater than what most Americans would receive under Bush's plan - which gives whopping cuts to the top 1%, but little to most other brackets. The cost of Daschle's proposal would be $450 billion over 10 years, as compared to the $1.6 trillion price tag (not including $400 billion in interest payments) for Bush's plan. Daschle emphasized that his plan could be adopted quickly, as a first step towards the Democrats and Republicans finding a sensible alternative to Bush's plan.

Walter Williams writes in the Seattle Times: "Voters may have thought they were electing Bush II, a moderate Republican, but they elected Reagan II. The first Reagan pushed through the most massive tax cut in American history, mainly benefiting the rich and starting the nation toward 16 straight years of huge deficits. The same snake oil that President Reagan sold so well in 1981 is now available today. Buy Bush's 'Sure Cure Tax Cut' if you want to be fooled again. What stands out in Bush's Feb. 27 budget speech to Congress is the use of the 'Big Lie.' Not some tall tale no one is likely to swallow, the Big Lie uses technically true or seemingly reasonable claims to mislead people and hide egregious outcomes." He identifies 3 Big Lies.

"When he was running for the White House, [Bush] justified his tax cut plan by citing the economy's then-remarkable strength. He even insisted that to have an impact, the cuts must be enacted before a slowdown begins. 'If delayed until a downturn begins, tax cuts would come too late to prevent a recession,' he said when he announced his proposal on Dec. 1, 1999. White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said Bush has consistently said his tax cuts would provide 'a second wind' for the economy. But Democrats say Bush has reversed his rationale, and liken it to his abandonment of his campaign pledge to control carbon dioxide emissions. 'This president doesn't feel bound by anything he said during the campaign,' said Democratic political consultant Mark Mellman."

According to the Feminist Majority, Bush’s $1.6 trillion tax cut plan endangers vitally-needed social programs including education, health care, and possibly Social Security and Medicare. At the same time, the tax cut provides little relief to average women workers and disproportionately benefits the wealthy. "The economic well-being of women in the United States is severely threatened by Bush’s tax cut proposal. As both tax payers and recipients of social services, women have little to gain and everything to lose from this plan," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority.

Does this sound familiar? "A tax plan the country could not afford; based on economic numbers plucked out of thin air, an economic forecast that had no hope of coming true; and the devastating recession, outrageous deficits, and massive national debt that it all produced." That's what happened the last time a Republican President - Ronald Reagan - passed a massive tax cut. To refresh Capitol Hill memories, People for the American Way is distributing copies of David Stockman's "The Triumph of Politics," which detailed the origins of the Reagan tax cut catastrophe.

As the market tanks and the economy dives into recession, House Republicans cannot contain their fiscal nihilism. They are now adding $600 billion in new tax cuts to Bush's $1.6 trillion plan. Folks, it's time to dust off those old "Apples - $.05" signs from the Great Depression.

"Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill defended President Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut in a way that brazenly captured America's grubby garishness. Two weeks ago O'Neill said the cut will put 'more money back into the hands of people who will buy homes and cars and bigger homes and bigger cars.' On the face of it, it is disgusting to consider that the tax cut is simply so a nation already obese in waist and wallet can snort ever more as a hog going to slaughter the environment." So writes Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson.

A CBS/NYTimes poll, only 38% say the tax cuts in Bush's proposed budget are fair to all Americans, while 56% say the cuts are unfair because they mostly benefit the rich. Only 39% say it will make a significant difference in the amount of money they have after taxes, while 54% say it will not.

It's not enough that Bush's tax plan gives 45% of the benefits to the top 1%. Now Republicans want to make the rich even richer by cutting capital gains rates - already outrageously low at 20% - down to 15%. That means the rich who play with their wealth will pay taxes at a LOWER rate (because they don't pay payroll taxes) than the poor who slave away at 3 jobs to feed their children!!! When Marie Antoinette was told the poor could not afford bread, she said "Let them eat cake!" That's the attitude of the Republican Party. In France, that attitude produced a revolution.

How stupid does Trent Lott think we are? Now, as some kind of "compromise," Lott proposes a non-specific "mid-course adjustment" to Bush's giveaway in case the surplus projections fail - as they most definitely will. Lott wants to first give all those bucks back to the rich - and let Bush and Congress worry about the massive deficits later. This is even more ridiculous than the "trigger" plan. Lott expects us to trust the GOP and the election thief (who followed with his insulting appointments) to put the brakes on in "some sort of" way. John Kerry (D-MA) has the right attitude about Bush's tax plan, with or without "triggers" or "adjustments": "I think what happened in the House, in fact, will be interpreted by many Democrats in the Senate as almost an insult, a slap in the face to a real democratic process."

In Saturday's weekly Democratic radio address, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada attacked the Republican tax cut bill passed by the House of Representatives as irresponsible and ill-conceived. The alternative Democratic plan, he countered, would address the national debt, protect Social Security and Medicare, help seniors pay for prescription drugs and "give something back to every American."

Not content with pickpocketing the working people of America with a gluttonous budget busting tax cut for the wealthy, Dubya told the Washington Post that he is anticipating a second tax cut a year or two down the line. If the Democrats in the Senate don't hang tough, we are doomed. By the way, Tom Daschle needs to spend a little less "quality time" with the President. Tom's a Democrat after all, isn't he?

"If you factor in the millions who opted for outriders--Ralph Nader to Gore's left; Patrick Buchanan, Harry Browne, and Howard Phillips to Bush's right--then the electorate's expressed preference for a budgetary and tax regime more liberal than Bush's goes from a mere plurality of half a million to an outright majority of two and a half million. Our ramshackle eighteenth-century institutional and constitutional arrangements enabled Bush to become President despite being defeated in the vote of the people. Those arrangements, fortuitously, also give the Democratic half of the Senate the power to obstruct a tax proposal which, in its disputed parts, comes down to greed. The use of that power would be another symmetry, and not a fearful one."

Last Friday, the Washington Post reported that 45% of Bush's tax cut would go to the wealthiest 1%. On Saturday, that figure was cut to 22%. Read the anatomy of a scrub by The Daily Howler.

Bush hit the road to sell his tax cuts for the rich, but the road hit him right back. Bush is visiting GA, NE, AR, LA, ND, and SD to pressure moderate Democratic Senators in these states. But these Senators deeply resent Bush's efforts to muscle them.

The estate tax only affects the richest 2 percent of Americas. "Pop's first $675,000 can be passed down totally tax-free. And it's not as though everything on top of that gets grabbed by the government. The highest tax rate is 55%, and that applies only to estates over $5 million.. The battle over the estate tax is simply about the ability of the very richest Americans to grab more of what they already have. They've got a leg up now, and they want their kids to have a leg up, and then they'd just as soon kick the ladder down, because once they get their tax breaks, the rest of us will have to carry more of the tax burden." So writes Matthew Rothschild in The Progressive.

In 1993 the Clinton Administration increased taxes on the richest 1% of Americans. Conservatives like William F. Buckley and the Wall Street Journal editors wailed against this tax hike as injurious to the "most productive," and therefore the health of the nation. But these savants were ultimately proven wrong - the average income for this top bracket increased from $398K in 1993 to $518K in 1997, a 30 percent increase. In addition, we have had the longest economic expansion in US history under Clinton, and Clinton's balanced budgets put us on the road to paying down the $4 trillion national debt mostly racked up by Reagan's "feed the rich" tax cuts and wasteful defense spending. Now Bush wants to give up to 45% of the tax cuts to this bracket that pays 20% of the total taxes - a 2:1 ratio. Of course, this is all based on wild 10 year projected surpluses, with no substantive measures to pay down the debt. Bush's plan will just return us to the massive deficits of the Reagan and Bush years.

Every objective analysis of Bush's tax cut shows the wealthiest 1% get 43-45% of the benefits. Well, Bush doesn't like the truth, so he had his spin doctors scrub the numbers. Voila! Now the top 1% gets only 22%. Of course, that requires scrubbing the elimination of the estate tax and the cuts that go into effect in 2006. Hey George - why don't you just scrub the whole stupid plan?

"President Bush's maiden address to the nation was classic Dubya: He talks moderate and governs right. And this is never more true than on economic issues. The man cannot possibly want us to sign off on an enormous tax cut designed to benefit the rich without telling us what will be cut. In budgets, as in bridges, the devil is in the details -- and the details of the amorphous plan that Bush presented Tuesday are grim indeed." So declares the inimitable Molly Ivins.

"Not since the Gilded Age have the very wealthy enjoyed such good times. Indeed, it was in reaction to the fortunes being built up by those robber barons that Teddy Roosevelt established the modern estate tax. With things once again going so swimmingly for the very rich, Bush has decided to relieve them of the need to pay the tax. And that, if you ask me, is what's un-American." So writes columnist Geneva Overholser.

According to a recent poll by the Washington Post, Americans want increased spending on needs like education and health care, not tax cuts for the wealthy. But Bush wants to give 45% of his tax cuts to the richest 1%, which will force cuts in the programs Americans want most. We're launching a campaign called "Need Before Greed" to mobilize the 99% of Americans who will benefit least from Bush's tax plan. Join our campaign!

Congressional Republicans are moving Bush's tax cuts at the speed of light. Their extra cut to the lowest bracket still leaves a plan that is ridiculously lop-sided, especially compared to the Democratic plan. In a Goebellian moment of scapegoating, House Speaker Hastert accused the Democrats of wishing a recession on America. Yes indeed, Denny and Bush sure have "raised the tone!" Speaker Gingrich - err, Hastert - said, "Obviously there are some on the other side of the aisle that don't want us to have success; they would like to see us go into recession." Excuse us, but weren't Bush and Cheney the ones jawboning the economy into recession to justify their outrageous giveaway to the rich as a needed economic "stimulus"?

They get Bush's tax bill rammed down their throat in the House, that's what. And they get Denny Hastert slandering them: "There are some people who would have it politically convenient to have a recession because that means they would have a political advantage. We are not going to let that happen," Hastert said. "By moving that tax cut early and having it in time to kick this economy up and get it going, we are not going to let that happen." Them's fighting words! C'mon Congressional Democrats, it's time to fight back.

"Don't mess with Texas? George W. Bush's motto is 'Mess with taxes.' And do it for the rich. Bush's economic plan has something for everybody who's anybody. And you're nobody." So writes Rob Morse in the San Francisco Chronicle.

How greedy can Bush and his gluttonous supporters get? As greedy as we let them get. Trying to pass an income redistribution tax cut AND repeal the estate tax at the same time should get the blood boiling of the hard-working working men and women of America. Let your representatives in Congress hear from you, today!

"Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit." So says Warren Buffett. Why are Democrats leaving it to the plutocrats to fight the creation of an un-American aristocracy of wealth?

Jim Jeffords (R-VT) and Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) announced their opposition to Bush's tax giveaway to the wealthy. Among Democrats, only Zell Miller (D-GA) is supporting the bill.

Calling the Bush tax plan "morally wrong," the AFL-CIO offered its own tax plans this week. They offered three alternatives: a) An annual "prosperity dividend" of $400 for every man, woman and child; b) a $1,000 refundable child tax credit; and c) a refundable income tax credit that exempts the first $5,700 in earnings from the employee portion of the payroll tax.

On a list of national priorities, tax reduction ranked well below education, maintaining economic growth, reducing deficits, solving energy problems and maintaining a strong military, according to a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll. Among respondents, 53% said the tax cut was very or somewhat likely to cause a federal budget deficit; 57% said it was likely to take away money needed for Social Security; 75% said it was likely to benefit mostly the rich.

With two moderate Republicans breaking ranks with Bush on his proposed $1.6 trillion tax cut, Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) said on Wednesday he was optimistic about winning the fight for a smaller package geared toward lower income families. "We do think that this is a real good contest and one that we could win, and I'm very hopeful," Daschle said.

Corporate interests are aggressively lobbying Bush to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25%, which would transfer $60 billion per year to Bush's corporate overlords. Over ten years, this would rack up $600 billion, or 38% of Bush's proposed $1.6 trillion tax cut. And don't forget that 42.5% is already dedicated to the wealthiest 1% individuals. Moreover, the $1.6 trillion total would cost an additional $400 billion in interest payments. Plus, there is now a push to roll back the Alternative Minimum Tax to the tune of an ADDITIONAL $200 billion! This means Bush's tax plan has grown from the $1.3 trillion campaign artifice to a gargantuan $2.2 trillion! And keep in mind that this is out of a $4.6 trillion PROJECTED surplus. The best case scenario would leave only $2.4 trillion. Forget about paying off the national debt -- but what about Social Security? A Bush spokesperson says, "He will fight this. He is a little bit of a populist." That's real little - as in Nada.

Don't forget that Bush not only wants to cut services to Americans in order to give more money back to the wealthy, he also wants to repeal the estate tax. There are some rich Americans who believe that repealing the estate tax would be a gross injustice. They deserve some attention and credit.

Ever since Newt Gingrich's censors took control of NPR in 1995, Kevin Phillips has been the only commentator allowed to voice anti-Republican opinions. Phillips was once a populist Republican strategist, but seems genuinely outraged that the GOP has been entirely taken over by powerful corporations. "The Bush tax bill ... threatens to perpetuate the $8 trillion wealth buildup of the 1990s through a new 'aristocracy of inheritance' on a scale that Washington and Jefferson could never have imagined. For such a proposal to come from a president who owes his own office to inheritance, rather than popular election, is the crowning illegitimacy of them all."

Ronald Reagan's tax cut plan turned into a budgetary debacle when the corporate special interests added one expensive giveaway after another. More than anything else, Reagan's tax giveaway turned a $1 trillion deficit into a $4 trillion deficit by the time he left office. David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, said "the hogs came home to feed" on the tax bill. It's hog feeding time once again, as business groups fight for another $760 billion in giveaways beyond the $1.6 trillion plan.

Eric Alterman nails it again. The richest 1% watched their average after-tax incomes increase from $417,000 to $518,000 from 1989 to 1997 - a gain of 24%. But real wages for most Americans have remained flat since 1973, and 80% of working Americans pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. Cutting payroll taxes would help the people who need it most - and reduce the disincentive for businesses to hire, which is critical to fighting the coming Republican Recession.

The Democrats should insist that the tax cut be a "flat" tax cut - that the amount of money to be "refunded" to the American people be divided equally - a few hundred dollars among all the taxpayers - rather than given in the form of a percentage of taxes paid.

Bush likes to parade middle-class families like Paul and Debbie Peterson before the cameras to promote his tax plan. But if his plan had been in place in 1999, he and Laura Bush could have gotten a break 20 to 60 times that of the Petersons. Vice President Cheney and his wife, Lynne, meanwhile, could have gotten a break in 1999 of more than a quarter of a million dollars, according to the Wall Street Journal (subscription required.)

"All this talk about the need for fast tax cuts is an attempt to give skeptics the bum's rush, using panic over a short-term slowdown to hustle through long-run tax cuts that will do nothing to fight that slowdown. It's a tactic Mr. Bush's people clearly like; they're doing the same thing on environmental policy, trying to use California's electricity crisis to hustle through a weakening of environmental protection in Alaska and elsewhere. It's up to the Democrats, and perhaps a few principled Republicans, to demonstrate that they aren't bums, and they won't be rushed." So says Paul Krugman in the New York Times.

Bush's tax plan gives 35% of the benefits to wealthiest 1%, and only 4% of the benefits to the poorest 40%. "If you make more than $300,000 a year, this tax cut means you get to buy a new Lexus," said Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (SD). "If you make $50,000 a year, it means you get to buy a new muffler for your used car."