Laura D'Andrea Tyson, dean of the London Business School channels Paul Krugman in this week's (Aug. 11) issue of Business Week (registration required). Under the headline, "The Bush Tax Cuts Are Sapping America's Strength," Tyson angrily writes that the cost of the tax cuts is nearly three times as much as the tab for September 11, Afghanistan, Iraq, and homeland security combined:

"When George W. Bush became President, the federal government enjoyed a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. Today, less than three years later, Washington confronts sizable annual budget deficits regardless of the cyclical ups and downs of the economy. A growing number of private forecasters now predict a 10-year deficit of around $4 trillion -- $6.7 trillion excluding the Social Security surplus. Government debt and interest payments are slated to double as a share of the economy over the next decade, crowding out private investment and government spending on anything else."

Noting that the argument that cutting taxes (for the rich) is necessary to stimulate growth in a sluggish economy is a specious one, Tyson continues,

"And those long-term 'supply-side' growth benefits? Even the Republican-controlled Joint Committee on Taxation, using a variety of dynamic scoring assumptions, was forced to admit that these cuts are likely to reduce the economy's long-term growth. Why? Any positive business-investment incentives from lower taxes will be outweighed by the curtailing of national saving and investment caused by mammoth budget deficits. To the extent that larger deficits diminish domestic saving, they eat into productive investment. To the extent that larger deficits are funded by borrowing from the rest of the world, they raise the nation's foreign debt and drive future income into servicing this debt. Contrary to the claims of Administration ideologues, larger deficits mean lower future living standards."

And she concludes, "Even as they attack the Democrats for inciting class warfare, the President and his congressional allies have been waging it with a vengeance. Many Americans, especially those with low incomes, do not vote. As Americans consider whether to vote in 2004, they should ask: Are they better off now? Will they be better off in the long run? For most Americans, the answer is no."

But wait, the economy's improving isn't it? After all, the jobless rate fell to 6.2% last month. Oh, that's because a half a million formerly employed people have simply stopped looking for a job.

There's been a rise in temporary workers. That's great. I hear Starbucks offers benes.

But wait, the economy's improving isn't it? After all, the economy's really picking up the pace. Oh, that's because we're spending money like drunken sailors...on defense.

TAPPED also has a funny (in a depressing kind of way) post linking to JobsforJohn.com who confronted The Three Stooges of the Economy during their "Economic Delusion Tour" in Wisconsin this week. "Just wait" seems to be Moe's...er...Snow's mantra.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan...A stretched thin military is holding back reconstruction of the country, according to The Wall Street Journal today. But, sadly, the ADD of the American public is tired of that sad little country. According to a WSJ/NBC poll, only 2% of those polled think rebuilding Afghanistan should be a top foreign-policy priority for the Bush administration. But at the same time, 55% agreed with the Bush policy of pre-emption and 58% approve of sending troops to Liberia.

Phil Carter at Intel Dump is concerned about the zero-sum game the military is forced to play right now.

And 70% of Americans believe in Angels -- isn't that about the same number who believe Iraq was behind the September 11 attacks?

Yes, Americans by and large are insane. But we do produce the finest...entertainment...in the world.