MarkS,

That may be true in a thriving economy (although I doubt your statistics -- 80% of the income does not equal 80% of taxes paid, as any accountant worth her salt will tell you), but the US doesn't need more investment infrastructure right now.

The idea of jump-strating economic growth by cutting taxes to the wealthy and to large corporations is based on the idea that it spurs business investment and infrastructure. ("Supply Side economics") Then, in theory, those business hire employees, who can then afford to buy more of the products the same corporations sell to them. Like all theories, what may be true in one circumstance is not true in another.

There is substantial overcapacity in the US economy right now. Perfectly good factories are closed for lack of sales. US automakers have more inventory than they can sell, even with 0% interest. US agriculture is dumping excess food at bargain basement prices on Mexico and Chile while demand at food banks in the US is skyrocketing. Those companies fortunate enough to be selling through inventory are still taking gouges at their profit margin -- which means laying off yet more workers. We don't need more investment, because the economic capacity is already there.

The problem is weak purchasing power.

For the past 25 years, the US economy has rested soley on the backs of consumers, many of whom either can't afford the products or just plain spend to much. Consumer debt grows every year, and prices go up but wages don't keep pace with inflation. Like the stock market, it's a bubble that must crash. Unemployed workers can't buy new cars and new clothes. Underpaid workers aren't going to be buying luxuries to make businesses happy, and even the lowest interest rates in decades aren't spuring consumers to tackle more credit card debt to get the latest trinkets.

Employment isn't that bad YET (only 8.5 million Americans officially) -- but consumers with jobs aren't spending either. How is prompting companies to make more goods that remain unsold going to help? Economics is a see-saw -- both consumer and supply need to be in a good financial position for growth to happen. In the 80's this kind of supply side economics was a disaster for the country's budget and for consumers -- who started turning to plastic to buy groceries.

Yet, the Bush recipe for a thriving economy 2 years ago was tax cuts to the wealthy. Then the economy tanked, and it was still a sign that we must cut taxes for the wealthy. God forbid the economy recover without anyone doing anything, because the recipe for that will be tax cuts for the wealthy, too!

Do you think that a consortium of wealthy politicians is maybe a little biased when it comes to who pays less?

And let's remember, there's no such thing as a "tax cut." There's only "tax rearranging." Who pays for a tax cut to the wealthy? It isn't Congress -- most of them are millionaires. It isn't many of the richest businesses in this country, who already get so many tax breaks that some years they don't pay any at all. It's not going to be the bloated Defense Department budget. And with the individual states nearly as strapped for cash as the common worker, they aren't going to be able to make up the difference out of their budgets.

One guess.