■"$3 Trillion Price Tag Left Out As Bush Details His Agenda," by Mike Allen, Washington Post, 14 September 2004, p. A1.

■"The Choice on the Deficit," editorial, Washington Post, 14 September 2004, p. A26.

■"Trade Flip-Flops: It's odd that Bush has chosen this moment to threaten China with protectionism," op-ed by Sebastian Mallaby, Washington Post, 13 September 2004, p. A21.

■"U.S. Wants to Cancel Poorest Nations' Debt," by Paul Blustein, Washington Post, 14 September 2004, p. A6.

Scary and slightly counter-intuitive article on page 1 of the Post stating that Bush's second term plan for the budget would likely cost about $3 over a decade (one in cuts, two in new spending), while a similar analysis of the agenda Kerry put forth in Bean Town clocks in at about $2 trillion (all new spending). Yeah, yeah, what's a trillion?

What a minute . . . that's a lot of money!

Isn't it weird to read the Wash Post endorses a Democrat for president because he's actually pushing an agenda to control government spending while the Republican is going hog wild on spending? Is it just me, or it that completely backwards?

As the Post points out, deficit hawks aren't happy with Kerry either, but it's odd that more Republicans aren't taking Bush to task for the massive expansion of government he's unleashed. Yes, you can say Osama unleashed it, but it really is our choice, and it's a dangerous one. Already, US Treasury bonds are going unsold at auction. There are limits, and Bush seems determined to test them with an aggressive foreign policy that seems to expect the rest of the world to pick up the check.

On the other hand (and please, Kerry backers, stop sending me emails telling me not to be so even-handed), Bush's flip-flops on trade and protectionism seem small and obviously particular in their search for electoral college votes, whereas Kerry comes out point blank against things like a Central American Free Trade Agreement, telling me he lacks Clinton's magic at avoiding making globalization the "enemy" of the workers. Plus, the Bush White House is pushing a new plan to cancel billions upon billions of public debt for a host of the poorest Gap states, making U2's Bono presumably quite happy.

Upshot for me? Bush loses me on the $1 trillion in permanent tax cuts. I'm a major beneficiary of the cuts, and they don't strike me as worth all the pain they are going to cause the federal government over the years ahead, especially as we spend a lot of bucks in what I consider to be a serious GWOT. If Bush was as serious, he would abandon making his tax cuts permanent.