Federal deficit is now down 2.7% which is pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) amazing if you consider the fact that the Bush administration has lowered tax's and severely increased spending.

"A second fact you won't see in many other newspapers is that the federal budget deficit has also declined to close to its modern average. CBO says the deficit will fall to 2.7% of national output in the fiscal year that ends at the end of next month. It is expected to continue to fall to 2.4% of GDP next year and 2.0% in 2010, even if the Bush tax rates stay in place."
Taken from "Tax Dividends" by
Wall Street Journal, August 17, 2005; Page A10

This verifies that lowering tax's increased tax revenue. A fairly simple concept if any of you are familiar in economics.

But don't get me wrong, the Bush tax cuts, even though they are better than no tax cuts at all, are terrible. Bush's "step" system of lowering taxes is ludicrous. You see, under the current tax cut system, the federal government is going to lower taxes gradually over the next 8 years or so.

This gradual lowering of taxes causes uncertainty in the business world. Lets say you are a business and are about to go through with a major deal that would cost your company a lot of money. You could do that deal this year at a tax rate of X% or you could do it next year or the year after that at a tax rate of lower than X%. Bush's tax cut causes businesses to hold off major decisions till "next year, or a few years from now".

Bush's tax cuts slow down business and economic growth. He should have just lowered tax's in one fell swoop, and not have done the gradual route which is in affect today.

But still Bush has to be doing something right with the economy:
"The recent strength of the U.S. economy makes it all too easy to forget how difficult the economic situation was just a few years ago. Between 2000 and 2002, the economy was hit by an extraordinary series of shocks, including an extended decline in stock prices the S&P 500 index fell almost 50% from its peak in the spring of 2000), a recession, the 9/11 attacks, prosecuting the war on terrorism, and a string of corporate scandals. In March 2003, the Federal Reserve, citing "unusually large uncertainties," declared itself unable even to characterize the balance of risks to its goals of economic growth and price stability. U.S. businesses became extremely reluctant to make new investments or to hire new workers. GDP growth went negative in the third quarter of 2000 and averaged only 1.5% at an annual rate from mid-2000 to mid-2003. The unemployment rate reached 6.3% in June 2003.

Fortunately, good economic policies helped to turn the situation around. President Bush's tax cuts provided much needed and remarkably well-timed stimulus. Reducing tax rates on work and saving and providing incentives to companies to make new investments also set the stage for ongoing economic growth. The Federal Reserve cut short-term interest rates sharply and kept them low. Together, these policies jump-started the U.S. economic engine. While growth varied from quarter to quarter, real GDP grew at a strong 4.4% annual rate from mid-2003 through the first quarter of this year. Since May 2003, the economy has created 3.7 million payroll jobs, despite a marked rise in energy prices and diminishing monetary and fiscal stimulus in the past few quarters. For comparison, over the same periods, the euro-zone economies and Japan have grown at rates of 1.7% and 2.4% respectively and created, between them, only about 2.3 million jobs. America's economy is growing faster than that of any major industrialized country in the world."
Taken from "The Goldilocks Economy" by BEN S. BERNANKE
Wall Street Journal, July 27, 2005; Page A12

Oh and please don't flame me as being a Bush lover. I am FAR from it.

compare Clinton->bush sometime.
also may i remind you that were situated in an $8 trillion debt...