Isn't it just like the liberal spin that tax cuts are 'costs' that the government has to 'pay?' There's a perpetual denial going that tax cuts are the reason the deficit is lower by billions of dollars.
To wit "If Bush's tax cuts are renewed, the deficit picture would worsen by $204 billion in 2011 — to perhaps $327 billion or so. By 2015, the cost of extending the 2001 and subsequent tax cuts would reach $432 billion."
In other words, if the stimulus that has been reducing the deficit with increasing speed were to remain that it would all of a sudden make the deficit worse. And that makes sense to who?
That $432 billion isn't a cost, it's a stimulus. The liberal perspective is that tax revenue is the government's money, disassociated from the taxpayer who pays it. Except when more money is needed, then they zero in on 'the rich' to finance it. Money the government spends is our cost, money the people spend is the stimulus. The more money the people can keep, the more money the people will spend or invest. That's what creates jobs. It is economic principles rather than political ideologies that is moving the economy along, at twice the rate of any country in Europe. Why won't they admit that?
Forecasters See Drop in Budget Deficit (AP). AP - Congressional forecasters said Monday the federal deficit this year, though still huge, won't be as bad as originally projected — a welcome turn for President Bush who inherited healthy surpluses four years ago and saw them disappear in a sea of red ink. [Yahoo! News: Politics News]