All right, we've all heard how horrible George W. Bush's tax cut plan would be for the country.

So I thought it might be a good idea to find out exactly what Bush is proposing.

Here it is:

Bush offers a tax cut to every taxpayer, with the biggest percentage cut going to those at the lower end of the economic spectrum.

His proposal cuts the bottom rate from 15 to 10 percent - a rate cut of 33 percent for the lowest-income households. For middle-income taxpayers, the rate would go from 28 to 22 percent - a cut of 20 percent. And for the wealthiest taxpayers, the top rate would be cut from 39.6 to 33 percent - a cut of about 17 percent.

Bush opponents respond that the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers gets most of the tax cut dollars.

That's true, but it is also irrelevant.

The reason they get the most tax cut dollars is because they pay the most taxes - not because they're getting the biggest percentage of decrease in their tax rate.

In other words, a taxpayer in the highest bracket with a $100,000 tax bill would save $17,000. A lower-income taxpayer with a tax liability of $1,000 would save $333.

Who gets the biggest tax break? It's a matter of semantics. As a percentage, the lower-income person does. In sheer dollars, the high-income person does.

Bush opponents also claim that millions of "working families" would get no tax relief under the Bush plan.

That is true.

But those millions of "working families" are those whose incomes are low enough that they have no tax liability.

Obviously, if you pay no taxes, you can't benefit from a tax cut.

I can understand a little obfuscation in politics, but Gore has been outright lying about the Bush plan.

Gore has been saying over and over that Bush "would spend more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent than all of the new spending he proposes for education, health care, prescription drugs and national defense, all combined."

But that simply isn't true. According to the Washington Post, "Gov. Bush sets aside almost twice as much for new spending for prescription drugs, education and defense ($270 billion over 10 years) as he does for reducing the top tax rate to 33 percent ($149 billion over 10 years)."

Bush also proposes eliminating the marriage penalty and the inheritance tax.

And he advocates shoring up Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid before offering tax relief.

Al Gore's plan is significantly different.

Democrats are championing the Gore plan of targeted tax breaks for "those who need it most."

They say the Gore plan will help families better afford child care, higher education and health care.

That is true.

But to get the tax break under Gore's plan, you have to jump through some type of government hoop.

Obviously, to get the child care credit you must have a need for child care. To get the higher education credit, you must have a need for higher education.

Health care tax credits would be more inclusive because everyone needs health care at one time or another.

But in general, Gore's plan for tax breaks is tied to a certain government-induced behavior on the part of the taxpayer.

Even where Gore offers up a traditionally Republican tax-cut idea like repealing the marriage penalty, there is a catch.

Under Gore's plan, you can apply for marriage penalty relief only if you don't itemize your deductions.

So if you're married and own a home, you have to decide whether to claim your mortgage interest or eliminate the marriage penalty, but not both.

So both candidates want to give us a tax break, but there are significant differences in the ways they want to go about it.

And I think the differences in their tax plans are a mirror of the candidates' ideological and philosophical differences.

I think Bush wants less government and Gore wants more.

I think Gore wants the government to do more for us and I think Bush wants the government to do less.

I think Gore believes in a redistribution of wealth. That the government should collect tax dollars and then dole them out to whomever the government deems to need them the most.

I think Bush believes in letting people hang on to more of their earnings and limiting the number of government programs.

I think the choice is clear.

Democrats decry the fact that Bush is proposing $1.6 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years, but it doesn't seem to bother them that Gore's spending proposals add up to $2.9 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years.

Consider what Carol Cox Wait, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, had to say about Gore's spending proposals: 'These are very, very, very large spending increases. The vice president has really proposed a dramatic expansion in the role and cost of the federal government. There's really nothing like it until you go back to the spending programs of LBJ's Great Society social-welfare spending.'

It's a difference in philosophy. More government or less government. Use the surplus to shore up existing programs and lower taxes or use it to fund new government programs.

This will be no shock to readers, but I favor the Bush plan.

But I am not alone.

Here's what Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, said during a Congressional hearing earlier this year:

"The likelihood of maintaining a still satisfactory overall budget position over the longer run is greater, I believe, if surpluses are used to lower tax rates rather than to embark on new spending programs. History illustrates the difficulties of keeping spending in check, especially in programs that are open-ended commitments, which too often have led to larger outlays than initially envisioned ... Moreover, especially if designed to lower marginal rates, tax reductions can offer favorable incentives for economic performance.'

I couldn't have said it better myself. [[In-content Ad]]