W was in Sarasota, Fla., Tuesday at a fundraiser for GOP House hopeful Vern Buchanan.

He basically said Democrats might be a little overconfident in their quest to regain control of the House and Senate, according to an article in Wednesday's New York Post.

"The Democrats have made a lot of predictions," W was quoted as saying. "Matter of fact, I think they may be measuring the drapes."

The drapes comment might have been a slap at House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi who recently said that, as the new Speaker when Dems take over, "I'll have any suite I want."

W then went after Pelosi and Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), who would chair the House Ways and Means committee if the Dems take over.

He assured those in attendance that his tax cuts would go out the window if the Demos were in control.

The Post quoted W as saying, "You know, the top Democrat leader in the House (Pelosi) made an interesting statement recently. She said, 'We love tax cuts.' Given her record, she must be a secret admirer ... When we cut taxes on everybody that paid income taxes, she and her colleagues - most of her colleagues - voted against it. Time and time again, she had an opportunity to show her love for tax cuts. If this is the Democrats' idea of love, I wouldn't want to see what hate looks like."

Now, say what you will about W, he's directly on point when he says your taxes will go up if the Democrats take control.

Pelosi already has pledged that if Democrats take over she'll spearhead a successful effort next year to roll back W's tax cuts "for the wealthiest Americans."

Then she says the money would be used to reduce the federal deficit - not for new spending.

Two things are wrong with that position.

First, it assumes that raising taxes will result in an increase of revenue to the Treasury.

History shows - and I'm pretty sure Pelosi knows - the converse is true.

One need look no further than the current state of affairs in Washington to find the proof.

Demos have demonized W's tax policy as a sop to the wealthy and a budget buster that has driven up the deficits.

But it wasn't tax cuts that drove up the deficits. It was spending.

Dr. Daniel J. Mitchell is McKenna Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

He notes in a recent article that fiscal year 2006 "numbers demonstrate the benefits of maintaining pro-growth tax policies, but also the need to reduce spending and reform entitlement programs.

Federal tax collections jumped by 11.8 percent, climbing from $2.15 trillion in FY2005 to $2.41 trillion in FY2006. This $254 billion increase was more than three times faster than needed to keep pace with inflation. Federal tax revenues reached 18.4 percent of gross domestic product, above the post-World War II average of 18.3 percent."

Why does Pelosi want to fiddle with that level of revenue to the treasury? If she thinks she can improve that by rolling back the very tax cuts that created it, she's nuts.

What needs to happen is a reduction in spending. The revenue side of the equation is fine. If she wants to fix the deficit problem all she needs to do is convince Congress to stop spending so much.

Oh, yeah, and let's talk about the "wealthiest Americans" who she's going to increase taxes on.

I want to know who they are because W's tax cuts have actually made the tax code more progressive.

According to the IRS, the share of taxes paid by the top 5 percent of taxpayers will be 53.3 percent this year. (That's right. The top 5 percent pay 53.3 percent of the taxes. Does Pelosi think they're not paying their fair share?) Without W's tax cut their share would have been 51.6 percent. The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will be 3.4 percent and would have been 4 percent without the cuts.

I know it makes great politics to keep saying "tax cuts for the wealthy" over and over, but it's really pretty disingenuous.

Aside from increasing revenue to the treasury, W's tax policy also has played a role in creating a solid, productive economy:

Economic Growth - 3.5 percent year-to-year annual economic growth (real GDP) rate.

Business Investment - 13 straight quarters of positive capital investment.

Job Growth - 362,000 new net jobs created in the past three months, 37 straight months of job growth, more than 6.6 million since the President's tax relief took effect in mid-2003.

Low Unemployment - 4.6 percent unemployment rate, 12 months at or below 5 percent.

Tax Revenues - year-to-date tax receipts up 11.7 percent over last year's record 14.6 percent increase.

Steady Productivity - Labor Productivity grew at an annual rate of 2.9 percent in the first half of 2006, and has averaged 2.5 percent over the last year.

The stock market's up. Energy prices are down.

(People like to say that the stock market being up only helps rich Wall Street types. But how many Americans invest in a 401(k) every week? The stock market being up helps them, too.)

I really don't want this kind of news to stop.

If the current tax policy isn't made permanent, millions of Americans will see their taxes go up by billions of dollars. Economic growth will slow and tax revenue will dwindle.

That's a pretty compelling reason to keep Pelosi out of the Speaker's seat.

I can almost guarantee that.

I think W may be right about the Demos and the drapes.

Voters may not be happy about Iraq. Voters may not be happy about Foley. Voters may not be happy about immigration.

But I think lots of voters are happy about their paychecks and their 401(k)s.

Many times in elections, voters tend to vote their wallets. James Carville knew that. And he couldn't have said it any better when he helped Bill Clinton win the presidency in 1992.

Remember?

"It's the economy, stupid." [[In-content Ad]]