Regressive is as regressive does

Yes, learning more each day what George Bush means (or, at least the people who tell him what to say mean) when he says he wants the country to assume a "culture of ownership."

Wage income would be taxed at something close to a flat rate instead of today's graduated rates. Investment income would be largely tax-free. And individuals would shoulder more of the risk for their retirement, in return for potentially greater rewards.

Um, that is called completely redistributing the tax burden to the working poor and middle class, and away from the "owner class." Add to that a national sales tax and we are, seems to me, on the road to serfdom.

And if you doubted that redistribution was already taking place, than just ask Bush's former chief economist for the White Counceil of Economic Advisors, who now runs the Congressional Budget Office.

Within weeks of taking office, Mr. Holtz-Eakin dealt a big blow to Republicans. Analyzing the impact of Mr. Bush's spending and tax plans together, he concluded they would do little or nothing to stimulate long-term growth or make the deficit any smaller than it would be otherwise.

Last week, responding to questions posed by Democratic lawmakers, the Congressional Budget Office released a report showing that Mr. Bush's tax cuts were skewed very heavily to the very top income earners.

Never fear, my Republican friends, the report was quickly rebuffed by the brilliant counter-thesis of a certain well known, Nobel-winning economist [who also happens to -- still -- not be in an orange jumpsuit]:

Robert Novak, the conservative newspaper columnist, bitterly accused Mr. Holtz-Eakin of being a pawn for Democrats.

"Thanks to the C.B.O., Kerry can now accuse Bush of trying to destroy the middle class based on a nonpartisan report authored by a former Bush aide," Mr. Novak fumed, in a column published on Thursday.

Uh, yep, that's about right, Bob.