Brownstein thinks "it's reasonable to ask whether the country can afford more tax cuts." So let me ask you, dear reader, whether you think you could "afford" to have more money. Do you think, after paying for food, shelter, and clothing, you'd still be able to squeeze in a few more dollars into your budget? I hope you remember your college economics.
Brownstein also thinks "it may be difficult to argue for tax cuts beyond short-term measures to invigorate the economy". Well, maybe Brownstein had to carry water for his high school's debate team, but I wouldn't find it particularly difficult to argue.
Brownstein concedes that "short-term measures" could invigorate the economy in the short term. If so, then why wouldn't "long-term measures" invigorate the economy in the long term? A long-term tax cut puts more money back in the hands of those who earned it. And doesn't a "good" economy mean that more people have more money?
Genius-liberal (I know, those two words are like nails on a chalkboard together) Brownstein says "it may even become impossible to avoid asking whether the country can still afford all of the tax cuts approved last spring." So again, dear reader, do you think you can afford to keep that $300 check that Bush mailed to you? Will you be able to make ends meet?
Some people gave their tax refund checks to the families of the September 11 victims. Do you think those families can afford the money? Huh, Brownstein?
Brownstein thinks, or at least he says he thinks, that he cares about properly financing the war on terrorism:
"The armed forces are accepting the risk of combat. Police and fire departments and public health workers are accepting the risk of emergency response. Eventually, Congress and Bush will have to bear the fainter risk of honestly paying for all of those sacrifices."
To Brownstein, government welfare-state spending is a given. Brownstein assumes that if taxes are cut, the area of government that is necessarily going to be affected is the military.
Brownstein, didn't mommy and daddy ever teach you that if you want to buy that special toy, you might have to refrain from buying some of those less expensive toys that catch your eye? That's what we call budgeting. Can you say budgeting?
If we as a country can't afford all the little toys right now, toys like the Welfare-o-Matic or the Save-the-Alaskan-Tree-Slug Defense Fund (with deluxe action grip), all because we have a special toy to buy (one guaranteed to be unsafe for children under five, not to mention for the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda), then maybe we ought to start budgeting.
I realize that this causes a problem for you, Mr. Brownstein.
If we let Americans keep more of their money, while retaining a military budget at an acceptable level for winning this war, then you'd actually have to acknowledge the need to cut your pet programs.
It was so generous of you to offer to cut our military budget instead. Thanks for the offer. Thanks, but no thanks.
Postscript: The liberal NYC media can't stop repeating the 50 million-dollar figure which constitutes new Mayor Bloomberg's personal campaign expenses. What a perfect illustration of their never-ending hypocrisy.
The liberal media recoils in horror when they see a rich guy spending his own money on his own election campaign, or when a government spends money on the defense of its own citizens, but when it comes to the liberal agenda of stealing from the rich to give to the poor, the media is as generous with other people's money as Mayor Bloomberg is with his own.
