  Ah, my favorite column. Admittedly, I haven't had time to keep up on this as much as I'd like to in the last week, but a few things caught my eye. Politics: Kerry and Edwards roll on. I'm really looking forward to the debates this year and hope that we get some decent material to evaluate Kerry and Edwards on.
I really hope somebody calls out the fact that they just keep promising programs and initiatives that cost money- lots of it- but also say they'll reduce the federal deficit. Think about this one for a moment. They want to spend trillions of dollars on healthcare, alternative energy research, and all kinds of education initiatives but also say they'll reduce the difference between the government's income and its expenses. The questions have to be as follows: a) what spending will be reduced? Based on his record, probably support for our military. Nothing better than cutting their funding at a time when they have to train for and adapt to an entirely new kind of enemy as they battle terrorist cells around the world. The urban-style warfare that is required is more costly to support than traditional warfare. Will Kerry fund it? Somebody please ask him. If so, what will he cut? b) whose taxes will be increased? If expenses won't go down, income must go up to reduce the deficit.
I can tell you whose taxes- everybody's. Especially corporations and "the rich. " The funny thing about raising tax rates for the wealthy is that they have so many tax-reducing activities that they can afford to operate and participate in that recent studies show they only pay about 16% of their annual income in taxes to the federal government.
So why not raise rates for a group that will remain largely unaffected in real terms- to make it look like you're doing something- while increasing spending? Result- higher deficits. Also, more of the wealthy, who would otherwise invest in businesses to gain profits, end up having to find tax write-offs and shelters to protect their money from the government. Less money into the economy, little to no more to government, and increased government spending- you have a great recipe for killing economic expansion.
On the Republican front, continued assertions that Cheney will stay on the Republican ticket. The fact that he even needs to defend that position is funny to me. Almost as funny as him cursing at Leahy. The thing I find interesting about that whole situation is that anyone would expect a member of an administration that is under constant personal, venomous attack by many and nagging, subtle cheapshots from several others to take it all and not fire back at some point.
Keep poking a dog with a stick and sooner or later, you'll get bitten. All this proved to me is that Cheney's human for what he did and a lot more patient than me for how long it took him to do it. Economics: Greenspan's Capitol Hill report revealed little new information but continued to support the fact that economic growth is real, appears to be sustainable, and is broadening week by week to include employment, production, and most major areas.
Of course, the ignorant still cry that the sky is falling because they personally don't have twice the income they had last year. And they complain about inflation, since it's the one area that even Greenspan has acknowledged needs to be watched closely. Econ 101- with currency devaluation, prices rise. With loose monetary policy (targeting lower rates as the Fed has for past years), prices rise. Greenspan knows it and will adjust rates up if he has to. Things are well under control in both Americas. 
