A few observations on the "open letter to the president":

***"Spend the time before your inaugural convincing skittish investors that a "recession is right around the corner". "That way you could be guaranteed that there would be a downturn that you wouldn't have to be blamed for."

Would it have been better for him to say that Clinton left us with a robust economy that showed no signs of a downturn? If he'd done that, Democrats would have called him a liar just as easily. And if a president-elect's words can convince an entire nation that an economy is headed in a certain direction, then why was it that America's economy was experiencing 3.2% growth under George Bush in in November 1992 when Clinton continued to claim that America had its worst economy in 50 years? Several leading economists who had gone along with Clinton's rhetoric issued a collective formal apology to Bush after they looked at the facts on that one.

"This brilliantly ignored the fact that most of the working poor pay a greater proportion of the tax burden as Payroll taxes"...

Everyone who works pays payroll taxes. Are you saying that the benefits that come from those payroll taxes should be less for some, and that others should essentially subsidize their benefit plan? Are you saying that if you make over x number of dollars, you have to pay more for your benefits than someone who makes less than x dollars? All so you can earn 1.9% interest on your benefits, if you live long enough to see them? If anyone can tell me how making a black man with an average life expectancy of 65 put 15% of his income into a retirement plan which the government takes back if he dies before he reaches retirement age (65) is not racist, and I'll buy you a Coke. But the government knows that his family doesn't need that money, old white people he's never heard of need it more. But privatization is a bad thing, right?

***"Thanks in good part to you, your badmouthing of the economy, and your tax cut, we will not have to worry about that pesky surplus".

The surplus was originally predicted to be $730 billion over the next 3 years, now the CBO predicts it to be $702 billion. I tell you, that Bush is just destroying the economy, isn't he? And keep in mind that the $9 billion from social security surplus is actually nothing but IOUs written on government bonds. The bonds don't reflect real savings, as would an individual retirement account that earns interest on your money and has your name on it. Future retirees will have to depend on the kindness of politicians, not their own money. And remember, none of this would be an issue if the Democratic congress hadn't spent $326 billion in Social Security surpluses during the time Dick Gephardt's reign as House Majority Leader. I'm curious as to how many people complaining about the $9 billion Bush is spending were more than happy to let the Democratic Congress approve that $326 billion. Oh, but that was Reagan's fault, right? Yep, the Deomcratic majority in both houses back then just couldn't stop Old Man Reagan from spending all that Social Security money, could they?

One tip for those who've read this far: When it's time for Bush to sign the budget, in which the Democrats want more spending than he does, be sure to blame him if he vetoes their spending bills and causes some portions of the government to shut down... Just like you did when the Republican Congress wanted less spending in 1995 and Clinton vetoed their bills to shut down government that year. Oh what's that? Liberals and the national media (redundancy?) didn't blame the president for that shutdown? Well, it will certainly be nice to hear them play a new tune this go around. Here's hoping common sense prevails, with Bush cutting the amounts he wants to pour into Defense, and Democrats reducing some of their demands as well to keep the early eighties from happening all over again.