I have been listening intently to what the Democrats have had to say about W recently during their campaigns.

Some of it has merit, but some of it seems just plain silly.

One of the more ridiculous developments was the Demos beating up on Howard Dean for his stand on taxes.

You see, Dean says he would repeal the W tax cut.

His rivals were beating up on him for that.

Now, keep in mind that the Democrats for months - well, no, for years - have been telling us that the W tax cuts only benefit the wealthy. The middle class was left out.

You've heard that.

It's well-chronicled. It's a given. You know, the "wealthy one percent."

But now that Dean - who before his self-destructive rant in Iowa was the frontrunner - has said he would repeal them, those tax cuts have middle class written all over them.

Senator Joseph Lieberman, D-CT:

"Dean will repeal the middle class tax cuts. That would cost middle-class families in New Hampshire, [an] average family, $2,000 a year that they worked so hard for. He would take it back."

Lieberman also told reporters that Dean's plan "would take back $2,000 from the average family in New Hampshire."

And in Iowa: "Here in Iowa, [an] average family of four saved $1,800 a year under those tax cuts."

But wait. What about the stuff I gleaned from one of Joe's very own campaign Web site, leadingwithintegrity.com?

(I am assuming it is one of his own because at the bottom it says, "Paid for by Joe Lieberman for President, Inc.")

Check it out.

"Just as the economy was slowing down and the burdens on the middle class were ratcheting up, President Bush re-jiggered the tax system in a way that actually increases the middle class's share of the tax load.

The facts here are clear:

* The 2003 Bush tax cut gives an average tax cut of $100,000 to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans - 36 percent of the total benefits.

* The bottom 60 percent got an average tax cut of $100 per year.

O.K., Joe, which is it?

Then there's Senator John Edwards, D-NC:

"Democrats cannot say to the average family of four in Iowa: your taxes are going up by more than $1,700."

Yet, on edwardsforprez.com, we find this:

"Senator John Edwards said legislation signed by President Bush offers tax breaks for the wealthy ...

'I support tax cuts for the middle class. I'm for putting money in the pockets or working Americans... It's too bad the bill the president signed is chock full of gimmicks, tilted to favor the wealthy...' "

And in the Washington Post, Edwards says that Bush is allowing "a multimillionaire sitting beside his swimming pool" to pay "a lower tax rate than a teacher, than a police officer, than a secretary."

OK, if Bush didn't give the middle class a tax cut, what average family in Iowa is Edwards talking about?

So what is the truth about the W tax cuts for the middle class. Well that is a very complex question, with tons of variables.

But there are organizations that decipher such things, so for the answer, I turned to a couple different sources.

According to calculations by the left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice, the average reduction in taxes for Iowa residents with incomes in the middle 20% of the income distribution resulting from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is $908 for 2004. CTJ notes that the average cut for New Hampshire residents with incomes in the middle 20 percent of the state's income distribution is $1,110 in 2004.

The more independent Tax Policy Center has calculated tax cuts for middle income earners - those making $40,000 to $50,000 - in the range of $1,012.

Even people making $20,000 to $30,000 saved $638 on average, the TPC found.

But really, whether you think there was a middle-class tax cut or not, shouldn't you at least be consistent.

I mean these guys are saying one thing to the media while their Web site says just the opposite.

And I find it absolutely bizarre that the Democrats, in order to trash an opponent, would actually exaggerate the amount of middle class tax savings under the W plan.

But I guess that's just politics in the good old USA. [[In-content Ad]]