[WarrenC]

He is expected to propose acceleration of the 2001 tax cuts for middle and upper income earners,but might not include cuts in connection with the top rate,which is 38.6 percent for income over $ 311,950, they said.

But to fail to cut the top rate is to pass a "tax cut" that will do nothing to promote economic growth. Such a failure not only cedes to the Dems the argument that tax cuts are a sop to the rich, it also guarantees that the economy won't grow. And a couple years later, we'll be sitting around wondering why the economy is so sluggish. A tax cut that doesn't include a reduction in top marginal rates is designed to fail and to discredit tax cuts as public policy. Why is this so hard for so many allegedly bright people to understand?

The president and the nation would be better off with no tax cut at all than with one that fails to reduce top marginal rates.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" A tax cut that doesn't include a reduction in top marginal rates is designed to fail and to discredit tax cuts as public policy. Why is this so hard for so many allegedly bright people to understand?

The president and the nation would be better off with no tax cut at all than with one that fails to reduce top marginal rates."

My point about Rush today, was that he was criticizing Bush prematurely-based on supposition from aides and speculation from Reuters.According to the quotes I posted from the Reuters article-no one knows what Bush is going to do,he is being tight lipped and he hasn't signed off on the package. The words "might" and "might not" and "probably" and " expected to" were used throughout the article-which Rush took as "definitely will" or "will not". If Rush wants to take apart Bush's economic stimulus package, perhaps he should wait until the details are actually announced by the President.