Yup, if you are demmocommie, all ya gotta do is pass the largest tax increase in history and viola! the budget is balanced!

Spend all you want... then just go to the well and get some more.

Forgot to note that Clinton (before the newt congress)passed a budget in 1993 without one GOP vote that did not increase the deficit for the first time in decades.

Alan Greenspan has a quote that this was the first step to fiscal responsibility that led to the later balanced budgets.

Reagan/Bush didn't even propose a budget that kept the deficit stable from year to year.

And, most of the Dem candidates will keep the middle class tax cuts but get rid of the tax cuts for the folks who are as wealthy as W.

Reagan never even drafted a balanced budget nevermind submit one. He talked a balanced budget never sat down to make one.

In fact, the Dem congress proposed less spending than Reagan in those budgets.

And, Reagan could have vetoed any big spending budget but didn't.

So, overall Reagan preached balanced budgets but never practiced having any.

He was a lousy leader especially on the budget.

Yup, you are correct. JFK (version 1.0) had tax cuts that started as soon as congress passed 'em. But Gee Dubya's 2001 tax cut was deferred or "Back Loaded" as Tom "Poodle" Daschle called it. That means that the Americans had to wait two or three more years (until 2003 and 2004) before the real benenfits of the tax cuts began to be felt in the economy. The tax cuts still won't be fully in effect until 2007 through 2010. And then the Dems 'comprimise' kicks in and INCREASES our taxes back to the draconian 2001 rate... a 100% increase for those that used to be in the bottom bracket and are now in the ZERO % tax bracket, and those in the next to the bottom bracket have a 50% increase when they go from ten to fifteen percent in their taxes. In the mean time, those in the top brackets will see a 6% tax increase when they go from 32% back up to 38%.

But Cubelo Syndrome sufferers would rather see the "rich" punished for their crime of working hard and earning more, and sacrifice impoverished low income workers to a draconian 50% to 100% increase in their tax bracket.

In my humble opinion, ALL Americans should be obligated to pay their fair share of government. With a $2.4 Trillion budget and with 290 million population, every man woman and child's "fair share" is $8,275.

And those that do not pay $33,103 in taxes for a typical family of four, are shifting their "fair share" of the cost of government over to some other person involuntarily. And here I thought we had outlawed slavery...

Does that make Mikey an agent of the Slave Massah?

"I do recall a Dem Prez by the name of Clinton who ended his terms with billions in surplus and reducing the federal debt" says Mikey. Ah, but do you also remember that Clinton saw $300b deficits as far as his eyes could see up until the Newt Gangritch Congress "shut down the government" by submitting a budget that had capped spending to a growth rate below that of both inflation and GDP... a budget that Billy refused to sign, "shutting down the government". It was only after the budgetary restraints of the 1994 GOP sweep of Congress with their "Contract With America" did we begin to see the perenial deficit start to diminish, culminating with the surplus that Gee Dubya inherited from Newt's Congress.

By the way, according to the Washington Post, "W's $500 billion deficit" is only 20% caused by his tax cuts. The other 80% was from the Clinton recession that Bush's tax cuts (now that they are finally starting to 'kick-in') are starting to have an affect in stimulating the economy. Those suffering from the Cubelo Syndrome probably haven't noticed, but the Dow has increased by more than 25% and Nasdac by over 50% from first quarter 2003 to first quarter 2004. And all those job losses are being offset by small business job increases and an increase in self employed people... catagories that gummit bureaucrats tend not to monitor.

By the way... as the Dems running for Prez promise to abolish the Bush tax cuts... they are telling those low income folks that they will raise their taxes from 10% to 15%.... a 50% increase, which would be reversing the cuts that Bush gave them while at the same time, cutting the taxes of the wealthiest wage earners by less than 8%. But as the wealthy pay most of the taxes, even an 8% tax cut leaves a greater amount of dollars in the pockets of those that earn them... which further infuriates the socialist statists on the left.

Medicaid bill that costs more than the estimates? Are you talking about W's medicaid prescription program?

JFK's tax cuts did not triple the deficit like Reagan's nor jack it up to over $500 billion like W.

Your comparison between JFK's tax cut and these GOP JFK wannabe's doesn't work.

I do recall a Dem Prez by the name of Clinton who ended his terms with billions in surplus and reducing the federal debt.

Not one GOP Prez accomplished that.

In fact, it took a GOP Prez to piss it all away on tax cuts for his rich pissy peers.

The same peers whose sons and daughters gain wealth without work and without defending our country.

We can look forward to a whole generation of spoiled rich kids like W who can't even show up for duty.

Yes I do.

And I recall Algore's daddy and his pal the Grand Wizard of the KKK, Senator Billy(bob)Byrd wearing their white sheets and burning a cross as they voted against that civil rights act while it was supported by the majority of GOP. I also recall ElBeeJay's grand destroyer of the black family structure, "the welfare state"... a bill that mandated the abandonment of the family by the male father figure before those households were allowed to participate in government's largess.

I also recall a medicaid bill that was supposed to only cost $9 billion by its tenth year... but today it fully consumes more than 20% of the entire descressionary budget.

Yup, I certainly remember ElBeeJay. And I also remember JFK (version 1.0, as opposed to the current JFK wanna be) as he was the one that pioneered the concept of cutting taxes to stimulate the economy. Both his and Ronald Reagan's tax cuts vertually doubled the gross revenue coming into the government. But the Democrat controled congress increased spending during the Reagan presidency $1.58 for every $1.00 increase in revenue that the tax cuts generated.

Thanks Mikey for reminding me of these two previous Democrat Presidents and the most significent contributions from each.

I admire your persistence but that's all you got.

The Dem Party rejected Wallace (you do recall that JFK/LBJ were leaders in getting civil rights legislation passed).

That is why southern politicians left the dems to be republicans at the time - like Strom.

Parents can escort their kids from public schools to private schools now.

Nobody is stopping them.

And hang a photo of that great Democrat icon, Gov. George Wallace, as he stood in the doorway of that same government school, blocking the entrance of poor minority children trying to get a better education.

Right next to Wallace's photo, hang a group photo of the state and US Democratic delegation standing in front of that same school house doorway, only now blocking the ESCAPE of those poor minority students from the government's school while they advocate the waste of tax dollars in support the NEA's "education" monopoly adjenda, instead of assisting every parent and providing every child with an equal allocation of funding for that child's education.

Now there's a photo gallery that those suffering from the "Cubelo Syndrome" would really love!

I am calling for specific politicians to be true leaders.

Why be generic?

Should I include one libertarian, one dem, one repub, and one turtle dove each time in a commentary?

I give examples and evidence for my criticism of individual politicians.

Obviously, I do have my favorites.

To me, opinion changes on gay marriages are not as critical as a guy who could speak as the leader of segregation while knowing that his daughter was a product of integration.

That is why Strom is one of my favorites.

And, honoring Verne with a portrait for a career based on disloyalty for power is an ongoing Strom tradition.

Need I say more?

You appear to be more into writing style than substance.

Take your pick on the range of issues raised about Verne, Fair, Strom, Sanford or W.

So far, your focus is on writing style....

No, apparently you still don't understand my criticism of your style.

But, thanks for playing.

Truth can be annoying to those who are reluctant to acknowledge it.

So, I understand your criticism of my annoying style.

After all those accusations you made, you still have not come up with one WMD.

Keep searching.

I too would shudder to think that a loved one was sent to war without the very best of motives and intelligence that the politicians could muster.

I am thankful to have men like your husband who are willing to fight to protect our freedoms. I, for one, place a very high bar before committing troups to any war. Marines especially are a fearsome weapon, and protecting their honor by ensuring that they are pointed only at the most threatening enemies of the USA IS, in my opinion, "supporting the troops."

However, if we try to look at it objectively, as each and every justification put forth before the war is fading away, I think each of us must ask ourselves "was it still the right thing to do." Because, although what is done is done, there will be a next time. And, we will need objective judgment to determine if a pre-emptive war policy based on clearly flawed intelligence "educated guesses" is the best thing for the country.

As for the author of the original column, he has a very annoying style that he is very proud of because he thinks it is interesting. He apparently doesn't care about what the people reading it think. Which, is good, because if he did, he would probably be more effective. Since I disagree with him most of the time, I'm glad he isn't.

How can I be a morals "pusher" without having morals? Am I as deceptive as Strom in his prime?

I rather not wait for God to hold Verne accountable and wish we hadn't waited to hold Strom accountable but Strom lied to us. Since they are (or were) public servants, we need to hold them accountable before they drop dead. We are the public and they affect our lives now.

I am happy to hear that a sex ed teacher was explicit in discussing sex with students. Students need sex information that is as detailed as their math lesson. Glad you had a good sex ed class in SC. It's rare due to Mike Fair.

You do realize that if a parent does not want his or her child to take sex ed, they don't have to.

I agree with you that Dems should be held accountable for their tenure and the GOP must be held accountable for theirs. My article is holding the GOP accountable for their recent actions that caused crowded classrooms and a lack of funds for education. It's their watch now.

By unnecessary war, I mean a war like Iraq where we invaded for one reason but now use others to justify it. We did not invade for Iraqi freedom. We invaded because Saddam had WMDs that could strke us within an hour.

That was not true.

Soldiers do what their commander in chief says to do.

Unfortunately, this commander in chief was in a hurry to send your husband to war. He didn't have to be in such a rush.

It was poor judgement and what compounds it is that this prez was in no hurry to go to Vietnam when he had his chance.

That is a cowardly act which soldiers like your husband should not respect.

I don't even without morals....