Richard N. Smith, a Republican political historian and director of the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics at the University of Kansas, said of the Bush administration: "My sense is that they may be paying a price, short term or not, about not being more explicit about the possible costs and long-term commitments that, quote, rebuilding, unquote, Iraq would necessarily require. They needed to do a much better job of explaining what the $87 billion is for. I think it shocked people."

--New York Times

Sure, Bush wasn't explicit, but if this shocked people, why did it shock them? Did they really believe a war could be fought and a country could be occupied at essentially no cost?

Is this what happens when virtually every member of one political party, and virtually all the commentators sympathetic to that party, tell people over and over again for twenty-five years that all tax money is poured down a rathole, and imply that all government services just appear by magic, as if they're provided by elves and fairies, so we can cut taxes whenever we want to by as much as we'd like?