Our president wants to make his tax cuts permanent, which means the already largest in history deficit is going to get even larger. To make up for that, since he doesn't want to cut homeland security or defense, it's going to end up being social services, health research, veterans, environment, that is going to suffer. The point of all this? For the rich to get richer. How much do you think the average person middle/low income person is really going to get back? It's going to be the people who make huge amounts of money a year (ahem Bush and family) who are going to reap the most benefits. That's exactly what I call fair and responsible and showing compassion. I mean, hey they earned it right? They should be allowed to keep as much as they possibly can, cause they have all they need and don't need anyone's help at all. Poor people be damned right? Right. Awesome. Sounds awesome.

From the Washington Post:

Analysts Call Outlook for Bush Plan Bleak
Too Much Deficit, Not Enough Revenue
By Jonathan Weisman

President Bush signaled yesterday that he would add personal investment accounts to the Social Security system, simplify the tax code without raising taxes and cut the budget deficit in half, all before he leaves office in 2009.
Ambitious as those promises are, they may be mathematically impossible, budget and policy analysts say.
"It doesn't seem like we're going to see any tightness in U.S. budget policy anytime soon," said Rebecca Patterson, senior currency strategist at Wall Street giant JPMorgan Chase.
....
But in an independent analysis of that budget, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded it would not fulfill that promise. The deficit in fiscal 2004, which ended Sept. 30, was $413 billion. Under Bush's plan for spending and taxes, the deficit would be $258 billion in 2009. If anything, that may understate the size of the deficit in coming years because it does not include any additional costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon is expected to seek an additional $70 billion early next year.
Moreover, the president's budget does not include the cost of a Social Security reform plan that includes the personal investment accounts Bush is demanding. Under such a plan, workers would be allowed to divert one-third or more of their share of Social Security taxes into stocks, bonds or other investments.
Because the diverted money would otherwise have gone to existing Social Security beneficiaries, the funds would have to be made up through additional government borrowing or spending cuts. A CBO analysis of one of the plans drafted by Bush's Social Security commission concluded the near-term cost would be $104.5 billion in 2005, rising to $146.6 billion in 2009.
Given the challenges of the president's Social Security plan amid record budget deficits, some budget analysts had hoped Bush's simultaneous call to simplify the tax code could be used to raise revenue. They reasoned that taxpayers may be willing to dig a little deeper in exchange for a tax system they see as simpler and fairer.
But Bush made it clear yesterday that was not his intention. Any tax code changes would have to bring in the same amount of revenue as the tax code they would replace, he said.
...
To cope with the cost of his agenda, Bush said he would impose "spending discipline" on Congress and spur economic growth to boost tax revenue. But he has also made it clear he would not cut defense or homeland security spending, and he has promised more spending for education.
The remaining spending at Congress's discretion -- transportation, law enforcement, veterans, agriculture, housing, health research, space exploration and national parks -- totaled $346.5 billion in 2004, not much less than the budget deficit. Eliminating all nondefense, non-homeland security spending may not be enough to balance the budget and cover the cost of the president's Social Security plan.
....