Don't forget the part about him getting to blame those liberals and progressives who criticized the deal for being impractical purists who are against victories for the American people, etc... 

And then there's the Sly Fox SS payroll holiday, which just starts okaying using money to (maybe) offset the decreases to the Trust Fund, one of the best insurance policies we have in this country.

Me, I'm thinking of becoming a Republican; it would be so much simpler, especially now.  ;o)

On the $100 billion giveaways to the rich, if "rich" is defined as families with $250,000 and up and individuals with $200K and up, I would like to know what the data indicates on proportions of additional discretionary income people at the low end of that definition of "rich" actually are likely to spend.  I'll go with the data on that point.  If it shows families in, say, the $250,000-$300,000 ranges, given costs of living where they tend to live, are likely to spend, say, 80% or 85% of that, then it seems to me there is a good case to be made for actual stimulative effect extending the definition of "rich" somewhat upward to include those folks. 

This would also be good divide and conquer politics as I see it, as many folks with those income levels do not consider themselves "rich" by any stretch of the imagination given living costs where they live.  Living as we do in suburban DC I happen to know people in that situation and think that they have a point based on what I both know and observe about the way they live their lives.  Past a certain income or wealth level, regardless of whether a person perceives themselves as "rich" or not I'd be in favor of moving as much of the tax burden onto those folks as possible, and in addition to that, making the system more progressive than it is at income levels below that.

When the topic is taxes, almost everyone is "middle class" these days.  I define true 'middle class' income levels--different from wealth levels where minorities continue to suffer from the effects of historic and current discrimination--as the 20% to 80% range in the income scale.  But to me it doesn't follow that anyone in the upper 20% is therefore "rich" and I think it is bad politics to lump everyone in the upper 20% together in the ongoing class warfare struggles. 

Where to draw the line at what being "rich" means today for tax increase purposes?  Again, I'd like to see the data.  If it shows major differences in the extent to which people, say, over $500,000/year spend when they have additional discretionary money, versus those in the 250-499 brackets, then maybe that's a better place to draw that line.  The finer the breakdown in the data the better can be the quality of the decisions made on this.

I think the point really needs to be threefold.  

1. The policy point is what is the stimulative bang for the buck, and drawing a line at what "rich" means that gets a large rather than trivial, and therefore wasteful for policy purposes, stimulative effect. 

2. The political point is not to unnecessarily alienate actual and potential liberal progressive supporters by "demonizing" them as "rich" if they are towards the lower end of the $250K family, $200K individual definition that, according to my understanding (please correct if I am mistaken) is the line that is incorporated into this current deal, and live in high cost-of-living areas such as NYC, Boston, Bay Area, DC.

3. There was no attempt I am aware of these past couple of weeks to introduce legislation that would reflect the perspective above and just let the Bush tax cuts expire.  Certainly no WH support for going that route.  It was quite content to give the back of its hand to those who voted for and worked for their election who might have supported such a move.