Earlier, Matt asked: [A]ny readers out there want to calculate how much lower the deficit would have been if the 2003 capital gains and dividends tax cuts hadn't been in effect? Well, I'm not sure about the capital gains and dividends cuts, but the Center on Budget and Policy Priotities informs us that: the tax cuts enacted since January 2001 are costing a total of $258 billion in 2006 (including the increased interest costs of the debt that result from the borrowing that is required to cover the lost revenues). This means that even with the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the response to Hurricane Katrina, the federal budget would essentially be in balance this year if the tax cuts had not been enacted, or if they had been offset by either increases in other taxes or cuts in programs, as would have been required under the Pay-As-You-Go rules that tax-cut proponents first ignored and then allowed to expire. So, rather than debating where and when to cut Social Security and Medicare, Congress could be seriously debating the merits of an Apollo-like program aimed at moving the U.S. economy away from dependency on fossil fuels. (Priorities, man, priorities)