Trust me, tax cuts are never permanent. But the purpose of the tax cut is to put a limit on the ambitions of politicians who see no limits on what they could accomplish if only they had a little more of your money in their pocket. The irony is that tax cuts usually result in an increase in tax revenues. If you were really worried about funding your favorite programs, you would support a tax regimen that maximized revenue, which is to say, lowered taxes. Why ever would you support increased tax rates which reduce tax revenue?
and repealing the so called "death" tax
This is intended to help the family farmer. The present tax code is helping to destroy the family farmer, who is typically asset rich and cash poor. It is not unusual for a farmer to be a millionaire on paper, which means upon his death the farm must be broken up to pay the death tax. This just pushes more land into corporate control. I'm ok with that, hey, I'm a Republican. But if you want to save the family farm, you have to end the death tax.
to the detriment of the Social Security (which he promised not to touch)
Social Security is bankrupt. Your favorite politicians robbed it clean to the bone. There is nothing there. Furthermore, your favorite politicians voted to tax Social Security income, and voted again to raise taxes on Social Security income. Does this not strike you as odd?
to the benefit to tax payers earning over $350,000 (the "truly" rich and greedy)
I hate to tell you this, but the Clinton cabinet had more millionaires in it than either Bush's.
while the deficits will stretch from here to the moon and beyond
Most people have a short memory. A balanced budget was a Republican dream for generations, but never possible until the Gingrich revolution. It was the combination of an expanding economy and Gingrich's hard knuckle brawling that brought us the first balanced budget ever. This was over the objection of Clinton and the Democrats, although once it was approved they quickly reversed course and claimed credit.
What Bush did upon taking office was to trim the budget to eliminate the "projected" budget surplus that was beginning to accumulate. Its important to remember that this "tax cut" hasn't really taken effect yet. So any supposed bad effects are still in the future; as of right now there is no tax cut, its still a gleam in some speechwriter's eye. Who knew at that time we would soon be at war. So suddenly the budget is expanding, as it should, to pay for beans and bullets. And in the middle of a war, the Democrats are trying to expand the budget for non-military programs. Wasn't the budget for these things big enough when Clinton was in office? Has the social need for more free stuff suddenly grown now that we are at war?
appointing reactionary conservative judges to the federal bench,
What is a reactionary? Conservatives want to appoint judges who will administer the law as it is written, in accordance to the constitution as it is written. Conservatives believe that the rules for altering the law and the constitution must be obeyed. Change it if you want to, but do it legally. This is the only way anyone can have any confidence coming before a judge. If everyone knows the judge will enforce the law as it is written, most conflicts evaporate, since anyone who can read can see what the law says for themselves. But if the law depends upon the opinion of a judge, who sees himself as having the power to override the written law, we set ourselves up for chaos and corruption. Who, under such conditions, would dare to face a judge without first paving the way with loads of campaign cash and phone calls from influential friends?
which means the Roe V. Wade decision is toast and when overturned women will be forced to seek out back alley abortions
If Roe V Wade is overturned, that simply returns the abortion issue to the individual states. If there is popular support in that state for abortion, which there probably is in most states, precisely nothing will change. As a constitutionalist, I will be happier, however, because by the constitution the federal government should have no say in the issue either for or against. This is properly a state issue.
I find your choice of words here interesting: "women will be forced to seek out ... abortions". Which women are forced to seek out abortions anywhere? A fundamental requirement for liberty, to be a free person in a free land, is the willingness to accept responsibility for what we do. People do not become pregnant by magic, and if they do, no one forces them to seek out an abortion. But in the present political climate, the overturning of Roe V Wade will not end abortion in the US. If the voters want it, they will continue to have it.
I find it odd, however, that so much passion is expended on the Democratic side of the aisle on behalf of an industry devoted to killing. Not that killing can't be an honorable profession, mind you, I have nothing but respect for soldiers who confront dictators, and even some grudging respect for the gallowsmen who dispatch serial killers to their reward. But I just can't work up any great admiration for people who pervert their medical skills sucking the life from people who have yet to commit any crime whatever. Maybe they would have, had they been born. Since most of their mothers are Democrats, I suppose I should support abortion as it represents the wholescale slaughter of future Democrats, at the hands of other Democrats. Its odd that a political party would have as its fundamental tenet the slaughter of its own future adherents.
winnable nuclear war,
We won. Winning a nuclear war, preferably without firing a shot, is imminently better than losing one. The key to winning is to be prepared to fight it, survive it, and win it. If you are prepared, you may not have to pull the trigger. But if you are not prepared, it is almost a certainty that your greatest fears will come to visit you.
invading a Caribbean island,
I vaguely remember that Grenada was returned to democracy under Reagan. I also remember that Clinton brought Aristide to power in Haiti. Since Aristide was a psychopath, I know which of the two situations gives me more pride. But the head of the Democratic party at the time was the well-paid lobbyist for the Haitian government, both the Baby Doc Duvalier regime and the Aristide regime. The generals who overthrew Duvalier made the mistake of not hiring prominent Democratic lobbyists, and so were replaced by Aristide, with US military assistance, who was wiser.
I could go on, but I'm hungry.