This is precisely why I asked you to support speeding up the tax cuts from 2010 to 2003 --because we need economic stimulus now.

"Furthermore, while the average millionaire would reap a windfall of $90,000 under the President's plan, half of South Dakota's taxpayers would receive less than $100, and one-third would receive nothing at all."

I believe you missed my point. When, millionaires, have more money, they buy more things, they start more businesses, and they invest more money. Buying more things, Starting businesses, and investing money -- all create jobs. As Former President Kennedy said, "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now."

Also, millionaires that own businesses, raise their workers wages to stay competitive in the work-force marketplace. Also, when the rich have to pay taxes, it's the middle class that support it. When my chiropractor gets taxed twice as much as me, it doesn't phase him. He simple raises the price for treatment. When my dentist gets taxed twice as high as me, she simply raises the rates. When lawyers, plumbers, etc. Have to pay high taxes, they simply raise their rates. The people who pay for a rich person's services, has to pay for those high taxes. Not them. 2nd, many of that 1/3 of the population, aren't paying any taxes now. You need to look at the percentage of the population who already pay taxes. Not the percentage of everybody. You can't give tax relief to people who don't already pay taxes.

2nd, a wealthy person has gotten that wealth by earning it. Or having it given to them by someone who earned it. What right does the government have, to coerce, and force these people into giving money to the government for projects they, may or may not approve of.

You write:

"In addition, recent estimates project that President Bush's budget would result in a $2 trillion deficit over the next decade, and that the national debt would grow to $5 trillion by 2008.  A tax cut of the size
proposed by President Bush - $726 billion over the next decade - would challenge our diminishing ability to fund such important priorities as the war in Iraq, the continuing war against terrorism, the effort to strengthen our homeland security, paying down the national debt and strengthening the education of our children.  While I certainly agree that a tax cut is needed to stimulate growth and assist our struggling
economy, I am concerned that the President's plan would cost us more than we can responsibly afford at this time."

Again, I think you missed my point. The only real way to lower taxes for the long term, is to quit government spending. When Reagan lowered taxes as president, the income to the government doubled. The problem is, he spent triple what they had in the past. If you don't lower spending, any tax cut, is really a shell game, because government will either figure out how to tax Americans in other ways, so they can keep spending, or it will increase the money supply and we'll all have to pay for it through rampant inflation like we did in the thirties and the seventies.

You write:

"For these reasons, I recently introduced the Economic Recovery Act of 2003, a  $141 billion economic stimulus plan that would have an immediate impact, be targeted to middle-income people, and be fiscally responsible.  The centerpiece of this proposal is a broad-based tax cut that would provide $1,200 to the average South Dakota family of four.  The tax cut would be $300 per adult, plus $300 per child, up to two children."

Here's what I would like you to do. Do both. Speed up Bushes Tax cuts to the current year instead of the year 2010, and add this. You can certainly do both, if you would just cut spending.

As I mentioned in my previous letter:

End Corporate Welfare.
End farm subsidies.
End the war on poverty.
End foreign welfare.

End corporate Welfare. Stop baling out all these industries. Force them to use their own ingenuity, and thrift to figure out how to serve there customers better. You bill supporting the war in Iraq had so many special interest favors in it, it's no wonder our government has a deficit. Republican Thad Cochran put language in it giving $250 Million to Southern catfish farmers. And you voted for it. The bill also gave:

* $98 million for an agricultural research lab in Iowa, and $250 million in other Agriculture Department grants.
* $3.2 billion to extend unemployment benefits for airline employees.
* $11 million for Congressional salaries and expenses.
* A total of $12.4 million for the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the General Accounting Office and the U.S. Court of International Trade.
* $8 billion in foreign aid for nations that are supposedly helping the fight against terrorism, including Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and Djibouti.

And you voted for it.

In this time of economic downturn. Families and businesses (Who don't get bailed out) have to figure out ways to save money. Our federal government needs to learn how to scrimp and be thrifty in economic downturn too.

So get rid of the "Market Access Program" which gives billions of dollars to already profitable companies.
End corporate welfare -- period.

End farm subsidies. If farmers can't make it here in the US in Farming? Perhaps they should find a different business, or perhaps they should be forced to figure out how to cut costs, and compete just like every other business and family in the US does. We can certainly purchase food from third world countries who are struggling. And farmers who have already figured out how to do things cheaply will survive and thrive. Ending farm subsidies and regulation of milk, peanuts, and sugar, would help consumers too ways: Less taxes and cheeper food -- so you won't need to give as much welfare.

End the war on poverty. Ever since Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty started, all it's done is make poor people poorer, and cause cycles of rampant inflation. Giving money to poor people, just makes more poor people. Let them figure out how to take responsibility for their own lives. I donate money every year to private charities here in the US, and locally here in Sioux Falls, which I believe are capable of teaching people who are poor these responsibilities, and how to get our of self destructive behaviors which lead to their poverty. If I wasn't taxed so much I'd be able to give to charities more. And charities do a much better job of helping the poor, then the government does. Most charities need to boast less then 5% overhead, in order for people to even think about donating to them. The federal government waists over 70 cents out of every dollar paid in taxes (a 70% overhead?), to middlemen: IRS agent, auditors, etc. to get money into Washington. And then to social workers, etc. to get it out to the poor. Why not just keep that money in the community in the first place. People would give more to local charities, churches, etc. if they could. Americans, are very giving people. (Just look at how the Red Cross raised money after September 11.) It's just, we like to give the way WE want to give. We want to give in ways, so that it makes a difference, not the way the government forces us to give.

Get rid of foreign welfare. Just like giving money to poor people, simply creates more poor people, giving money to poor countries simply creates a since of dependency. Instead, let the free market purchase their goods. We would buy things in America for cheeper, we would pay less taxes, and these third world economies would finally start to get off the ground. Economic freedom helps everybody out.

By cutting just a fraction of the spending of what I've listed here (I've listed a good $200 Billion worth of spending cuts. I'm sure you could find more, since you've actually studied it.), I've given you a way to add your tax cut plan and to speed up Bush's plan from 2010 to 2003.

Tracy Saboe