Hey, I never said that Bush doesn't care about tax cuts -- in fact, I think it's the only thing he's really willing to expend political capital for! As for Limbaugh's tired paean to supply siderism, yawn! Call me when there's some evidence for it working. Much more compelling is John Derbyshire
, writing in the Corner:



I have a comparatively simple financial life, yet it has been my experience that come tax time, nobody knows what my taxes due should be to better than a five per cent margin. I mean, if I went to a dozen different accountants with my papers, I'd get a dozen different numbers for my taxes due, varying in a range of plus or minus five per cent around some mean. Any tax benefit to me from the Bush plan is just lost in this fuzzy penumbra. I assume a lot of other people have even fuzzier ones. The U.S. tax code is desperately in need of simplification, and the kind of tinkering being done in this latest plan, while worthy and well-intentioned, is deeply unimpressive to me--and, I would guess, to a lot of other voters.




Why keep carrying water on behalf of the rich and their tax cuts, when there are other, much more interesting and important ways to cut taxes than these?



And get back to me when we start having a real debate on affirmative action, abortion, Social Security privatization, tort reform...

Why have a debate about abortion when he can just reform the Federal judiciary and return the issue where it belongs -- the states? Then
we can have a debate -- 50 of them, in fact -- about it. (I leave out D.C. because, well, you think Congress is gonna leave something like that in their hands?)



As for the rest: He has a majority in both houses now. Let's see how he handles it.