Sunday, June 27, 2004
From "449 Stupid Things Republicans Have Said" by Ted Rueter:
"Look, I don't care about the numbers. I know the facts." -- George W. Bush.
"First, let me make it very clear. Poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill." -- George W. Bush.
"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question." -- George W. Bush.
And 446 more....
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Look, I don't care about the numbers. I know the facts." -- George W. Bush.
"First, let me make it very clear. Poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill." -- George W. Bush.
"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question." -- George W. Bush.
And 446 more....
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59146-2004Jun21.html
Grand Delusion Two Leaders Who See What They Want to See
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, June 22, 2004; Page A17
I believe Cheney.
I believe the vice president when he claims that there was a link of some sort between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda -- and by intended implication with the events of Sept. 11, 2001. I believe, that is, that he is not necessarily lying, not making things up. I believe, in other words, that Cheney's -- and President Bush's -- insistence on this association is just more evidence that the two of them are blinkered by ideology and seeing precisely what they want.
I'll tell you a story. There was a man who went to see a psychiatrist. First, the shrink showed him a picture of crossed sticks and then one of hundreds of little dots. "What's that?" the shrink asked. Snakes and ants having sex, the man replied. The shrink told the man he was obsessed with sex. "What do you expect," the patient replied, "when you keep showing me dirty pictures?" . . .
. . . But just as Cheney and Bush missed the forest for the trees, so do those who defend them and insist that the Sept. 11 commission overstated the case by reporting (in a draft) that "no collaborative relationship" existed between Iraq and al Qaeda. The fact remains that Hussein's fingerprints are not on the attacks of Sept. 11 and that the United States went to war for stated reasons that have simply evaporated -- weapons of mass destruction and that vaporous link between two very bad men. This brings me not to a joke but to the wisdom of the late Don Quixote, who says something to remember when this or that intelligence report is trumpeted by Cheney or Bush in justification of an unjustified war.
"Facts are the enemy of truth."
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Delusion Two Leaders Who See What They Want to See
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, June 22, 2004; Page A17
I believe Cheney.
I believe the vice president when he claims that there was a link of some sort between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda -- and by intended implication with the events of Sept. 11, 2001. I believe, that is, that he is not necessarily lying, not making things up. I believe, in other words, that Cheney's -- and President Bush's -- insistence on this association is just more evidence that the two of them are blinkered by ideology and seeing precisely what they want.
I'll tell you a story. There was a man who went to see a psychiatrist. First, the shrink showed him a picture of crossed sticks and then one of hundreds of little dots. "What's that?" the shrink asked. Snakes and ants having sex, the man replied. The shrink told the man he was obsessed with sex. "What do you expect," the patient replied, "when you keep showing me dirty pictures?" . . .
. . . But just as Cheney and Bush missed the forest for the trees, so do those who defend them and insist that the Sept. 11 commission overstated the case by reporting (in a draft) that "no collaborative relationship" existed between Iraq and al Qaeda. The fact remains that Hussein's fingerprints are not on the attacks of Sept. 11 and that the United States went to war for stated reasons that have simply evaporated -- weapons of mass destruction and that vaporous link between two very bad men. This brings me not to a joke but to the wisdom of the late Don Quixote, who says something to remember when this or that intelligence report is trumpeted by Cheney or Bush in justification of an unjustified war.
"Facts are the enemy of truth."
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, June 20, 2004
From today's Pioneerpress: POLITICKLE
"The State Department released a memo saying that terrorism has gone down. And so it turns out the only reason they released that statement was because of a mathematical error. Apparently terrorism hasn't really gone down at all. It was only released because of a mathematical error. Mathematical error? Isn't that how Bush became president in the first place?" — David Letterman
"John Kerry suspended his campaign for five days last week in honor of President Reagan's funeral. Kerry didn't do photo ops and he didn't give any speeches, and right now he's ahead of President Bush in the polls. How does that make Kerry feel? He finally shuts up and he goes up in the polls." — Jay Leno
***
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The State Department released a memo saying that terrorism has gone down. And so it turns out the only reason they released that statement was because of a mathematical error. Apparently terrorism hasn't really gone down at all. It was only released because of a mathematical error. Mathematical error? Isn't that how Bush became president in the first place?" — David Letterman
"John Kerry suspended his campaign for five days last week in honor of President Reagan's funeral. Kerry didn't do photo ops and he didn't give any speeches, and right now he's ahead of President Bush in the polls. How does that make Kerry feel? He finally shuts up and he goes up in the polls." — Jay Leno
***
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, June 13, 2004
This story was sent to you by: Judy
WOW!!!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-diplo13jun13,1,1546700.story
THE RACE TO THE WHITE HOUSE
Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go
By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials, several appointed to key positions by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, plans to issue a joint statement this week arguing that President George W. Bush has damaged America's national security and should be defeated in November.
The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, will explicitly condemn Bush's foreign policy, according to several of those who signed the document.
"It is clear that the statement calls for the defeat of the administration," said William C. Harrop, the ambassador to Israel under President Bush's father and one of the group's principal organizers.
Those signing the document, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, include 20 former U.S. ambassadors, appointed by presidents of both parties, to countries including Israel, the former Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia.
Others are senior State Department officials from the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations and former military leaders, including retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East under President Bush's father. Hoar is a prominent critic of the war in Iraq.
Some of those signing the document — such as Hoar and former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill A. McPeak — have identified themselves as supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. But most have not endorsed any candidate, members of the group said.
It is unusual for so many former high-level military officials and career diplomats to issue such an overtly political message during a presidential campaign. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOW!!!
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-diplo13jun13,1,1546700.story
THE RACE TO THE WHITE HOUSE
Retired Officials Say Bush Must Go
By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials, several appointed to key positions by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, plans to issue a joint statement this week arguing that President George W. Bush has damaged America's national security and should be defeated in November.
The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, will explicitly condemn Bush's foreign policy, according to several of those who signed the document.
"It is clear that the statement calls for the defeat of the administration," said William C. Harrop, the ambassador to Israel under President Bush's father and one of the group's principal organizers.
Those signing the document, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, include 20 former U.S. ambassadors, appointed by presidents of both parties, to countries including Israel, the former Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia.
Others are senior State Department officials from the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations and former military leaders, including retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East under President Bush's father. Hoar is a prominent critic of the war in Iraq.
Some of those signing the document — such as Hoar and former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill A. McPeak — have identified themselves as supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. But most have not endorsed any candidate, members of the group said.
It is unusual for so many former high-level military officials and career diplomats to issue such an overtly political message during a presidential campaign. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HERE'S A BLAST IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION:
Dignitaries Fault Bush Administration
Washington Post, June 13, 2004
Angered by President Bush's conduct of foreign policy and dismayed about America's diminished reputation abroad, more than two dozen former top diplomats and military leaders will release a statement this week calling for a change in U.S. national security policy.
Members of the group -- a mix of Republicans and Democrats -- have served in capitals from Moscow to Tel Aviv and Lima to Kinshasa. The list includes a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former head of U.S. Central Command, a former CIA director and a decorated array of former ambassadors and assistant secretaries of state and defense.
"We all have this extremely strong feeling that this administration has failed in its responsibilities to the nation," H. Allen Holmes, former assistant secretary of defense for special operations, said yesterday. "We have never been so isolated in the world, and feared. It's incredible that the United States should be in that position."
As a group, they are the latest and most prominent collection of former national security figures to complain about the direction of Bush administration foreign policy....
... The one-page statement will be released formally Wednesday at a Washington news conference....
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W5RA05BC9862732700A573FFC96870
***
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dignitaries Fault Bush Administration
Washington Post, June 13, 2004
Angered by President Bush's conduct of foreign policy and dismayed about America's diminished reputation abroad, more than two dozen former top diplomats and military leaders will release a statement this week calling for a change in U.S. national security policy.
Members of the group -- a mix of Republicans and Democrats -- have served in capitals from Moscow to Tel Aviv and Lima to Kinshasa. The list includes a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former head of U.S. Central Command, a former CIA director and a decorated array of former ambassadors and assistant secretaries of state and defense.
"We all have this extremely strong feeling that this administration has failed in its responsibilities to the nation," H. Allen Holmes, former assistant secretary of defense for special operations, said yesterday. "We have never been so isolated in the world, and feared. It's incredible that the United States should be in that position."
As a group, they are the latest and most prominent collection of former national security figures to complain about the direction of Bush administration foreign policy....
... The one-page statement will be released formally Wednesday at a Washington news conference....
http://letters.washingtonpost.com/W5RA05BC9862732700A573FFC96870
***
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, June 12, 2004
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aFIFPr9Ur0BE&refer=us
John Edwards Favored as Kerry's Running Mate, AP Poll Shows
June 12 (Bloomberg) -- North Carolina Democratic Senator John Edwards is favored by voters to be the running mate of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, the Associated Press reported, citing a poll conducted for the service by Ipsos-Public Affairs.
Edwards was the top choice as vice presidential candidate for 36 percent of 778 registered voters polled June 7 to 9, and he was the favorite of 43 percent of Democrats. The poll had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points, AP said.
A pairing with Edwards tied with the ticket of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in the poll, the same result as when respondents rate Kerry against Bush without running mates, the news service said.
The results showed 19 percent of registered voters prefer Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, the former Democratic leader in Congress, and 18 percent want Kerry to select retired Army General Wesley Clark. All three men ran against Kerry in the Democratic presidential primary.
(AP 6-12 Online)
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Edwards Favored as Kerry's Running Mate, AP Poll Shows
June 12 (Bloomberg) -- North Carolina Democratic Senator John Edwards is favored by voters to be the running mate of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, the Associated Press reported, citing a poll conducted for the service by Ipsos-Public Affairs.
Edwards was the top choice as vice presidential candidate for 36 percent of 778 registered voters polled June 7 to 9, and he was the favorite of 43 percent of Democrats. The poll had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points, AP said.
A pairing with Edwards tied with the ticket of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in the poll, the same result as when respondents rate Kerry against Bush without running mates, the news service said.
The results showed 19 percent of registered voters prefer Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, the former Democratic leader in Congress, and 18 percent want Kerry to select retired Army General Wesley Clark. All three men ran against Kerry in the Democratic presidential primary.
(AP 6-12 Online)
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, June 11, 2004
http://radiofreeusa.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3112
Opinion: Bush's kiss of death (8 June 04)
MOLLY IVINS, AlterNet
AUSTIN, Texas – As Lily Tomlin observed, "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up." But as Con Ed used to say, dig we must. Courtesy of David Sirota at americanprogress.org , we find the following matches between word and deed:
Just before Memorial Day, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi said, "Our active military respond better to Republicans" because of "the tremendous support that President Bush has provided for our military and our veterans." The same day, the White House announced plans for massive cuts in veterans' health care for 2006.
Last January, Bush praised veterans during a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The same day, 164,000 veterans were told the White House was "immediately cutting off their access to the VA health care system."
My favorite in this category was the short-lived plan to charge soldiers wounded in Iraq for their meals when they got to American military hospitals. The plan mercifully died aborning after it hit the newspapers. . . .
. . . Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc., points out the House Interior Appropriations Committee had to cut $682 million from the White House budget proposal this year. The budget situation is now so dire that the latest Republican scheme is to not pass a budget at all this year (until after the election), lest people notice what is going on.
The White House's latest ploy is to claim that the 2006 guidelines it issued are just a mere wisp of a suggestion, nothing to be taken seriously. But the White House has already submitted legislation to impose spending caps that would continue the cuts every year thereafter until 2009.
Are there any grown-ups in this administration? Budgets are the guts of government. "Who benefits?" and "Who pays?" are the only serious questions. Except, of course, for the always timely, "What the hell will they do to us next?"
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion: Bush's kiss of death (8 June 04)
MOLLY IVINS, AlterNet
AUSTIN, Texas – As Lily Tomlin observed, "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up." But as Con Ed used to say, dig we must. Courtesy of David Sirota at americanprogress.org , we find the following matches between word and deed:
Just before Memorial Day, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi said, "Our active military respond better to Republicans" because of "the tremendous support that President Bush has provided for our military and our veterans." The same day, the White House announced plans for massive cuts in veterans' health care for 2006.
Last January, Bush praised veterans during a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The same day, 164,000 veterans were told the White House was "immediately cutting off their access to the VA health care system."
My favorite in this category was the short-lived plan to charge soldiers wounded in Iraq for their meals when they got to American military hospitals. The plan mercifully died aborning after it hit the newspapers. . . .
. . . Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc., points out the House Interior Appropriations Committee had to cut $682 million from the White House budget proposal this year. The budget situation is now so dire that the latest Republican scheme is to not pass a budget at all this year (until after the election), lest people notice what is going on.
The White House's latest ploy is to claim that the 2006 guidelines it issued are just a mere wisp of a suggestion, nothing to be taken seriously. But the White House has already submitted legislation to impose spending caps that would continue the cuts every year thereafter until 2009.
Are there any grown-ups in this administration? Budgets are the guts of government. "Who benefits?" and "Who pays?" are the only serious questions. Except, of course, for the always timely, "What the hell will they do to us next?"
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
http://www.dtriptv.org/
Sign up to get your all access pass to watch Republican Survivor and vote off losers. Soon, we will be adding tons of interactive fun to DTripTV, so will definitely want to have access.
The Polls are Currently Closed
The polls are closed for Webisode 1 and America has spoken loud and clear. Watch the elimination ceremony (if you haven't already) to find out who was voted off and check the vote totals for the final numbers.
And stay tuned. The next webisode of Republican Survivor is this Thursday!
Week 1 Results
Survivor Vote Percentage
Attorney General John Ashcroft 40%
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay 34%
Ann Coulter 26%
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sign up to get your all access pass to watch Republican Survivor and vote off losers. Soon, we will be adding tons of interactive fun to DTripTV, so will definitely want to have access.
The Polls are Currently Closed
The polls are closed for Webisode 1 and America has spoken loud and clear. Watch the elimination ceremony (if you haven't already) to find out who was voted off and check the vote totals for the final numbers.
And stay tuned. The next webisode of Republican Survivor is this Thursday!
Week 1 Results
Survivor Vote Percentage
Attorney General John Ashcroft 40%
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay 34%
Ann Coulter 26%
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26401-2004Jun8.html
Memo on Torture Draws Focus to Bush
Aide Says President Set Guidelines for Interrogations, Not Specific Techniques
By Mike Allen and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A03
The disclosure that the Justice Department advised the White House in 2002 that the torture of al Qaeda terrorist suspects might be legally defensible has focused new attention on the role President Bush played in setting the rules for interrogations in the war on terrorism. . . .
. . . An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, addressed to Gonzales, said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation" conducted against suspected terrorists.
The document provided legal guidance for the CIA, which crafted new, more aggressive techniques for its operatives in the field. McClellan called the memo a historic or scholarly review of laws and conventions concerning torture. "The memo was not prepared to provide advice on specific methods or techniques," he said. "It was analytical."
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft yesterday refused senators' requests to make public the memo, which is not classified, and would not discuss any possible involvement of the president. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memo on Torture Draws Focus to Bush
Aide Says President Set Guidelines for Interrogations, Not Specific Techniques
By Mike Allen and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A03
The disclosure that the Justice Department advised the White House in 2002 that the torture of al Qaeda terrorist suspects might be legally defensible has focused new attention on the role President Bush played in setting the rules for interrogations in the war on terrorism. . . .
. . . An Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, addressed to Gonzales, said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation" conducted against suspected terrorists.
The document provided legal guidance for the CIA, which crafted new, more aggressive techniques for its operatives in the field. McClellan called the memo a historic or scholarly review of laws and conventions concerning torture. "The memo was not prepared to provide advice on specific methods or techniques," he said. "It was analytical."
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft yesterday refused senators' requests to make public the memo, which is not classified, and would not discuss any possible involvement of the president. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, June 06, 2004
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4629.shtml
Bush Knew About Leak of CIA Operative's Name
By Staff and Wire Reports
Jun 3, 2004, 05:28
Witnesses told a federal grand jury President George W. Bush knew about, and took no action to stop, the release of a covert CIA operative's name to a journalist in an attempt to discredit her husband, a critic of administration policy in Iraq.
Their damning testimony has prompted Bush to contact an outside lawyer for legal advice because evidence increasingly points to his involvement in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to syndicated columnist Robert Novak.
The move suggests the president anticipates being questioned by prosecutors. Sources say grand jury witnesses have implicated the President and his top advisor, Karl Rove. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Knew About Leak of CIA Operative's Name
By Staff and Wire Reports
Jun 3, 2004, 05:28
Witnesses told a federal grand jury President George W. Bush knew about, and took no action to stop, the release of a covert CIA operative's name to a journalist in an attempt to discredit her husband, a critic of administration policy in Iraq.
Their damning testimony has prompted Bush to contact an outside lawyer for legal advice because evidence increasingly points to his involvement in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to syndicated columnist Robert Novak.
The move suggests the president anticipates being questioned by prosecutors. Sources say grand jury witnesses have implicated the President and his top advisor, Karl Rove. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, June 05, 2004
A smiler.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/corrections/chi-0406040333jun04,1,483997.story
chicagotribune.com >> Corrections and clarifications
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS Published June 4, 2004
- Because of a misplaced pronoun, Clarence Page's Wednesday column incorrectly indicated that Democrat John Kerry had shifted his positions on nation-building, a Department of Homeland Security, an amendment against gay marriage and negotiating with North Korea over its nuclear weapons program. In fact, it was President Bush who changed his positions on those issues.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/corrections/chi-0406040333jun04,1,483997.story
chicagotribune.com >> Corrections and clarifications
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS Published June 4, 2004
- Because of a misplaced pronoun, Clarence Page's Wednesday column incorrectly indicated that Democrat John Kerry had shifted his positions on nation-building, a Department of Homeland Security, an amendment against gay marriage and negotiating with North Korea over its nuclear weapons program. In fact, it was President Bush who changed his positions on those issues.
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, June 04, 2004
http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/
Trailer for Michael Moore's new film, 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' in theaters today
June 4, 2004
Day by day, the Michael Moore hype grows.
The trailer for the Flint satirist and pseudo-documentarian's incendiary new film "Fahrenheit 9/11" debuts in theaters today. But the curious can find it on his Web site anytime.
The Academy Award-winning filmmaker's new movie criticizes President Bush's response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
It portrays the Iraq war as a conflict that has unnecessarily endangered the American military, and connects the Bush family to Osama bin Laden's. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trailer for Michael Moore's new film, 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' in theaters today
June 4, 2004
Day by day, the Michael Moore hype grows.
The trailer for the Flint satirist and pseudo-documentarian's incendiary new film "Fahrenheit 9/11" debuts in theaters today. But the curious can find it on his Web site anytime.
The Academy Award-winning filmmaker's new movie criticizes President Bush's response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
It portrays the Iraq war as a conflict that has unnecessarily endangered the American military, and connects the Bush family to Osama bin Laden's. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, June 03, 2004
http://www.cbpp.org/6-2-04tax.htm
THE ULTIMATE BURDEN OF THE TAX CUTS
Once the Tax Cuts are Paid for, Low- and Middle-Income Households
Likely To Be Net Losers, on Average
By William G. Gale, Peter R. Orszag, and Isaac Shapiro[1]
Summary
Popular discussions about the advisability of recent tax cuts have frequently ignored a simple truism: someone, somewhere, at some time will have to pay for them. The payment may be in the form of increases in other taxes, reductions in government programs, or some combination of the two; the payment may occur now or later; it may be transparent or hidden. But iron laws of arithmetic and fiscal solvency tell us that the payment has to occur. . .
. . .To date, the tax cuts have been funded with increased borrowing. This postpones but does not eliminate the required payments.[2] It can also create the misleading impression that tax cuts make almost everyone better off because the direct tax-cut benefits are immediate and quantifiable but the ultimate costs are delayed and disguised and thus often ignored.
. . .Winners and Losers by Group
On average, the bottom four-fifths of households — households with income below about $76,400 — would lose more than they gain from the tax cuts once the necessary financing is taken into account. That is, once the need for financing is included, the 2001 and 2003 “tax cuts” are best seen as net tax cuts for the top 20 percent of households as a group, financed by net tax increases or benefit reductions for the remaining 80 percent of the population as a group. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ULTIMATE BURDEN OF THE TAX CUTS
Once the Tax Cuts are Paid for, Low- and Middle-Income Households
Likely To Be Net Losers, on Average
By William G. Gale, Peter R. Orszag, and Isaac Shapiro[1]
Summary
Popular discussions about the advisability of recent tax cuts have frequently ignored a simple truism: someone, somewhere, at some time will have to pay for them. The payment may be in the form of increases in other taxes, reductions in government programs, or some combination of the two; the payment may occur now or later; it may be transparent or hidden. But iron laws of arithmetic and fiscal solvency tell us that the payment has to occur. . .
. . .To date, the tax cuts have been funded with increased borrowing. This postpones but does not eliminate the required payments.[2] It can also create the misleading impression that tax cuts make almost everyone better off because the direct tax-cut benefits are immediate and quantifiable but the ultimate costs are delayed and disguised and thus often ignored.
. . .Winners and Losers by Group
On average, the bottom four-fifths of households — households with income below about $76,400 — would lose more than they gain from the tax cuts once the necessary financing is taken into account. That is, once the need for financing is included, the 2001 and 2003 “tax cuts” are best seen as net tax cuts for the top 20 percent of households as a group, financed by net tax increases or benefit reductions for the remaining 80 percent of the population as a group. . . .
End-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
