Part of the reason for the high price tag is that Bush sought to touch all his political bases — from the conservatives who are calling for across-the-board tax cuts to the broader range of middle-class voters who tend to sway presidential elections and to important constituencies such as senior citizens and small business owners.
--"Bush Presses Congress on Tax-Cutting Plan," AP story posted this afternoon
Sorry, but that's nonsense.
The cost of the Bush plan is projected to be $674 billion over ten years; $364 billion of this is supposed to result from the elimination of dividend taxes. But we also know from yesterday's news that the Bushies originally considered just cutting dividend taxes by 50%.
Wouldn't a 50% dividend tax cut have reached exactly the same people as a 100% dividend tax cut? In other words, wouldn't it have "touched the same bases"?
And wouldn't it have cost $182 billion less?