Greenspan's got Chutzpah - Sub title: What's the difference between "Tax and Spend" and the Current practice of Spend and Spend?

At least someone is saying that the emperor has no clothes:

Slice one:

"We owe future retirees as much time as possible to adjust their plans for work, saving and retirement spending," Greenspan said, suggesting an urgency that dovetails with Bush's call for action this year on Social Security before its financial situation worsens.

Still, there were fresh indications of the difficulty confronting Bush as he tries to build support in the Republican-controlled Congress for remaking the Depression-era program — including a nationwide poll that shows support for his plans dropping as they become better known.

Slice Two:

"You cannot continuously introduce legislation which tends to expand budget deficits because down the road the impact of an ever-rising deficit, especially as a percent of the GDP, creates some significant weakness in the structure of the economy," Greenspan told the House of Representatives Budget Committee. "

Addressing the government's own imbalances will require scrutiny of both spending and taxes. However, tax increases of sufficient dimension to deal with our looming fiscal problems arguably pose significant risks to economic growth and the revenue base," he said.

End slices:

Well, there has to be a big difference between what conservatives call the Tax and Spend Mode of Democratic leadership and the current death spiral we are in at the behest of W, Rove and Co. For all intents and purposes, it looks a lot like: "Hey, let's spend and spend, and screw our children" modus operandi for the current administration.

An 80 Billion here, an 80 billion there...

...Meanwhile in Iraq, the death toll for our GIs breaches 1500. That's a very large number of some very sad families.