I read US News & World Report cover-to-cover every week, so I did not get to the brilliant editorial by David Gergen until today. Many have attempted to warn the citizenry of the dangers of the Bush tax cut. Gergen makes the case very well:

Politics are clearly in the saddle, and it’s no secret the president’s men see tax cuts as a potent asset for re-election. A devotion to tax cuts keeps the conservative base energized. By accelerating cuts in personal income tax rates into next year, as has been reported, the White House boxes in Democrats, who have been calling for delaying those cuts. Instead, Democrats will be forced to argue in favor of reversing cuts already in place–in effect, higher taxes–or bite their tongues. Reportedly, the White House is also passing word to conservatives that Bush will propose new cuts every year he is in office, straight through a second term. All this is clever politics–and Bush has one of the best political teams ever. But it shouldn’t be confused with sound economic policy.

The president’s father, George H. W. Bush, had the courage to raise taxes in exchange for Democrats’ putting a lid on spending. It was the wrong choice for him politically: Arguably, it cost him re-election. But it was the right choice for the country. His economic policies, along with those of Bill Clinton (who also raised taxes), fueled a boom in the 1990s that lifted the incomes of millions of Americans at the bottom. Where are the leaders in Washington today who will put the young and the vulnerable ahead of wealthy contributors?

The deal that is being reported today means that the President will get his tax cuts, but we are all going to pay the price in the end. Well, those of us that don’t have the good fortune of being pals with the President.

Bob Herbert of the New York Times raises an important point this morning about the dealings of the federal government with Halliburton.

Let’s see. Who’s less patriotic, the Dixie Chicks or Dick Cheney’s long-term meal ticket, the Halliburton Company?

The Dixie Chicks were excoriated for simply exercising their constitutional right to speak out. With an ugly backlash and plans for a boycott growing, the group issued a humiliating public apology for “disrespectful” anti-Bush remarks made by its lead singer, Natalie Maines.

The Chicks learned how dangerous it can be to criticize the chief of a grand imperial power.

Halliburton, on the other hand, can do no wrong. Yes, it has a history of ripping off the government. And, yes, it’s made zillions doing business in countries that sponsor terrorism, including members of the “axis of evil” that is so despised by the president.

But the wrath of the White House has not come thundering down on Halliburton for consorting with the enemy. And there’s been very little public criticism. This is not some hapless singing group we’re talking about. Halliburton is a court favorite. So instead of being punished for its misdeeds, it’s been handed a huge share of the riches to be reaped from the reconstruction of Iraq and U.S. control of Iraqi oil.

We only recently learned that the “emergency” contract awarded to Halliburton was for much more than fighting oil well fires. These sort of inside deals are always going to peak the interest of those inside the Loop much more than America at large, but there has been far less analysis of this issue than of the free speech issues surrounding the Chicks. So once again, the populace focuses on a non-issue while the rich and powerful fill their pockets.

AMERICA PICKS RUBEN!!!!!!