Michael Medved offers 8 reasons.

Wordsmith --

Thanks! The Medved column is a great reminder to all conservatives why it is vital that they get out and vote. The coming elections need to go in the right direction (pun intended).

I would love nothing better than to punish some of the Republicans on the Hill that I don't believe have been representing us with the tenacity they should be, but replacing them, or allowing them to be replaced with Democrats is just plain dumb. We would be cutting off our noses to spite....

I agree. And if that's not redundant enough to the 10 reasons in your post, here are 13 more reasons.

Wordsmith --

Good show! And Mona Charen, to boot. Not long ago I read her book, "Do Gooders". She is always spot on.

Many thanks...

Seth,
Only some voters vote their pocketbooks, others tend to be one-issue voters. See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5303590.stm
for productivity vs real wages and how the economy affects many voters. Most polls show congressional approval ratings about 29%. You and I will vote our usual parties, but it will be interesting to see the affect of the 'swing' types. In fairness, many economic patterns such as gas prices, seem unrelated to politics.

Not long ago I read her book, "Do Gooders".

Yes, a great book worth the have.

BB --

The Beeb is no friend of the Bush Administration, and in past has more than a little taken on the role of NYT London.

Getting beyond that observation, however, raw data can be interpreted many ways by many people, depending upon the conclusions that best meet their agendas.

Here is my take:

When industries expand at the rate ours have since the Bush tax cuts took effect, and thousands of new jobs are created, productivity figures are naturally going to rise -- remember, they represent a sum total -- and of course revenue figures are going to climb. This is all a given.

Since large new enterprises tend to employ significant numbers of unskilled and entry level personnel, and since the compensation of these employees, markedly lower than that of skilled and/or long term employees, is figured into household income figures, the math that produces these figures is going to average down.

On the same token, Clinton did not create prosperity in the 1990s -- the industries that led the way to that healthy economy were rooted in 1980s origins. As such, the figures of the time reflected an ongoing economy rather than a new and growing economy. There is a difference.

In perhaps 5 or 6 years, when the present growth rate has levelled off, I would wager that the numbers will average out similar to the early and mid 1990s numbers.

This is entirely dependent, of course, upon a government that will not upset the economy once again by raising taxes back to 1990s levels, and returning us to the recession inherited in 2001 by the Bush Administration.

Wordsmith --

It is a proud member of my home library as well.

:-)

Seth,
Your comment
"raw data can be interpreted many ways by many people, depending upon the conclusions that best meet their agendas."
naturally sent me looking at the pros and cons of tax cuts. Of the dozens I looked at, ostensibly using the same data, not ONE was done from an unbiased viewpoint. After the data overload, I agree that economics is the dismal science. When I worked as a chemist in initiating explosives research, data was data and any 'spins' were handled by the marketing, sales and accounting departments (who's lives were relatively safe) That said, my ill-informed and jaundiced view is that tax cuts simply transfer $$ to the debt; with sales, property and other types, my taxes have remained the same
percentage over the last several years. But, hey, whose complaining?..its for a good cause!

BB --

When Bush cut taxes, the left naturally began screaming that he was benefiting the rich and screwing the poor -- for some reason, liberals seem to believe that this is a socialist country, wherein those who have are obligated to share their fortunes with those who do not. Had that been the intent of our founding fathers, America would not be the richest and most powerful country on earth. One of the things that keep socialist countries back is the lack of incentive those who have exhibit when they know they won't get to keep the money they make, because the government will only grab large percentages of it to take care of those who have not.

Instead, the theory that founded our capitalist society was that the more money the rich got to keep, the more they would invest, creating employment for those with less. That is what the Bush tax cuts have engendered, that is why our economy has blossomed since the tax cuts were introduced, that is the sole, only, solitary, period reason unemployment has decreased. The increased income tax volume has made up for the lowered taxes in the upper income strata. It also decreases the burden on the govt of payouts for such venues as unemployment insurance, welfare subsidies, etc.

In that sense, the Bush Administration has been looking out for the interests of the American people. If it benefits the rich more, so be it -- they are the people taking all the risks by investing their own equity in the enterprises that keep others working, why shouldn't they realize the lion's share of the profits?

Keep in mind that I am a serious anti-socialist -- even though I've donated significant amounts of money to tax deductible charities I believe in, I never deduct them from my taxes: That would be the same thing as making fellow taxpayers who might not agree with my agendas pay for them anyway, which is the way of today's Democrats and the liberals whose boots they lick, only they want it to be The Law, via taxation. Had those folks in the original 13 colonies, before sitting down to create this nation, been given a glimpse of what is happening today, there would never have been a United States of America.

Back from digressing, LOL, my financial affairs are pretty simple -- I paid cash for my house, I don't use credit instruments (I once did, lots, and then I decided that if I haven't the money to pay for something, I would be better off not having it until I could afford it without becoming indebted to others), and I basically want to be left alone by the govt. My affairs are none of their business as long as I'm not breaking any laws, and I pay my taxes without complaint -- as long as they're not as farfetched as the Democrats would like them to be. Then I pitch a bitch, but I pay them anyway. You can't fight city hall.

Much of the increased tax revenues of the last couple of years are being eaten by the War On Terror and other expensive issues, so it's not as glaringly obvious that the increased volume of tax revenue is there, but without it, we would see a much larger minus sign, as it were.

Moving beyond the economy, however, the rest of the many other "reasons to vote GOP" must also be considered -- they are all sterling reasons to cast our votes to starboard....

Seth,
"Had those folks in the original 13 colonies, before sitting down to create this nation, been given a glimpse of what is happening today, there would never have been a United States of America." Those honorable gentlemen, and over 90% of their constituents were farmers. How could they have foreseen 2.6% farmers any more than a man on the moon? That is the truly remarkable thing about the constitution; it was built for then and now. I agree that trickle-down works, but isn't very efficient. When wealth distribution reaches a certain point, it will readjust, either through politics, depression or revolution and am sure you are aware of all the examples from the past. I had to chuckle a little at your handling of credit: my neighbor, a 45 year old bachelor hedonist, has never borrowed, nor used a credit card. He built his house over 8 years (slowed by saving for his jetboat, 4 wheelers, hunting trips and trucks) from the basement (3 years while saving
for the frame) up. It has been 10 years now, and I am waiting for him to put in the lawn.
Such is rural Idaho, heh...

BB --

Your neighbor sounds like he has the right idea, though he also sounds like he has good carpentry skills to go with it, LOL. And electrical, and plumbing... just not landscaping.

As far as credit goes, I've seen too many personal disasters. I lived in SF during the early stages of the Clinton recession and saw a number of people I know, mired in debt -- 7-digit mortgages, notes on expensive cars, high 5-digit credit card balances, etc, etc suddenly have their worlds come crashing down around them when their companies went belly up or downsized, and out the window went their mega-compensated jobs. After months and months of fruitless searches for jobs in the same compensation brackets(the competition numbered in the thousands for very few positions), their credit ratings pulverized, so on and so forth, and being forced into infinitely more modest lifestyles, many ended up taking whatever they could get, generally jobs that paid a fraction of what they had previously earned, while still being pursued by creditors. A lot of bankruptcy filings (something else I don't believe in -- ones personal problems should not have to effect others, one should make arrangements to pay what one can until a debt is paid, even if it takes a lifetime and one has to do without stuff).

Long story made a few words longer, no credit for this guy, ever.

Seth, you really should take the last two comments you made in response to BB and use them as a post. They are right on target and brilliant.

I'm a "Seth" fan! :)

Gayle --

A "Seth fan". You humble me, because you and I both believe in America as it was intended to be and as it has, as such, proven to be one of the greatest success stories in history, not as
certain pseudo-Americans wish to change it to be, and I take a lot of inspiration from reading posts over at your place, as well.

I may take you up on that, because my comments in response to BB's are among my personal core beliefs.

For someone who is purportedly from "the other side", BB can be very thought provoking.