Algore has once again blasted the Bush administration, the tax cut, and the greedy American public for squandering the wonderful budget surplus. Pointing to a projected $5.6 Trillion (with a T) 10 year projected budget surplus, that is now projected to have vanished, Algore is quoted as saying "Surpluses are gone. They're gone. Where'd they go? One year. Boy, that was fast work."

On the other side of the coin however, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan a Bush-Clinton-Bush appointee, remarked that the economy was recovering nicely, considering the blows it has taken recently. He also said that Congress needed to keep spending in check, and that the tax cut actually helped economic recovery. Greenspan also said that Washington keeping more money than even they can spend is not good economic policy.

Now, who are we to believe? On one hand we have Algore, who thinks that Americans sending more of their money to Washington is good for the economy. On the other, we have Greenspan, who thinks that Americans keeping more of the money they earn is good for the economy.

Gore, in a fit of true communism, claimed that we should "put the emphasis on the people who actually need the attention of our government." The underlying Marxist belief is that tax cuts are actually money that is 'given' to the public. Gore feels that we should 'give' tax cuts to those that need it, even it's tax money they never paid to begin with. The sad thing is that the ignorant American public actually buys into this, partly because they are fooled by Gore's lies, and partly because they have something to gain.

The cold hard truth is that tax cuts mean people paying less money to begin with. True, if you cut every tax bracket 1%, then the people in the higher brackets are going to benefit more. But that is still true, even if you cut the lower brackets out altogether. The Bush Tax Cut lowered the bottom bracket from 15% to 10%. The 5% cut gave everyone who earned at least $6000 a year a nice $300 check. While this pales in comparison to the savings of a 1% cut in the 33% bracket, so would cutting out the 15% bracket altogether.

If you want really want to ask about what is 'fair', ask yourself why are people that make more money taxed higher rates to begin with? Ask Algore, or any other liberal democrat, and they'll immediately start talking about 'need', and people paying 'their fair share'. However, by definition a person that earns more would pay more even if the rates were constant. It works the same way a person that buys a Jaguar pays more sales tax than a person who buys a Hyundai. Since taxes are on income, and not wealth, the progressive taxation actually helps to keep poor people poor, and keep rich people rich. Democrats like Algore and Clinton have already amassed their riches. Now they want to keep you out of their club by taxing you to death and beyond.

I also wonder why democrats like Algore think that keeping more of your money in Washington is good for the economy. With the economy mostly being driven by private spending, ask yourself, do you think the government can honestly spend your money better than you can? Big Government spending increases every single year, yet it only helps keep incumbents in office. The American problem is stuck with the same old problems year after year. Yet democrats like Algore have the gall to tell hard working Americans that sending more money to Washington than even they are able to spend is a good thing.