Raving maniac Howard Dean is beginning to put his thoughts down in print so the rest of us can analyze the inconsistencies for ourselves.   Thanks Howie!   Today Dean's editorial letter is published in the Wall Street Journal.   So, let's take a look-see, shall we?

Dean says, "We need a Democratic Congress to fight the war on terror."   He then goes into a diatribe about family income, budget deficits and Iraq.   So his first punch-line is never again addressed in the argument.   It's just that we need Democrats to fight the war on terror.   Never mind that every major piece of legislation in this war has been a bipartisan effort, beginning with the 9/11 commission and their recommendations.   And there is nothing specific in Dean's words about what the Democrats would do differently.   We are left with John Kerry's words claiming they would do just about everything differently.

Dean's main focus seems to be the deficit and family income.   He claims even with "spending for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the response to Hurricane Katrina, the federal budget would essentially be in balance if the tax cuts had not been enacted."   This sounds great.   Just roll back those tax cuts and everything will be great.   But the results of those tax cuts were exactly what any economist could have told you they would be.   Overall tax collections increased significantly.   That's always what happens with tax cuts.   Every time those darn things are tried, government income increases markedly.   There's no hiding from this fact.

Dean attacks Bush's record on the incomes of the average "typical middle class" family.   I'd like to know specifically what a President does to improve this.   Average income has more to do with productivity gains than anything else.   Under Clinton use of computers to perform ordinary business functions dramatically increased no thanks to Clinton or even the invention of the Internet by Al Gore.   That stuff just happened.   No administration or congressional initiative caused it.   The free market, unencumbered by government, was responsible for increases in American wages.

Dean says under Bush, "Health and retirement coverage have declined for most workers and their families, and workers' costs have increased."   To translate, private businesses pinched workers.   Not a good trend, but again, not the domain of government, at least not in our society.   He also complains, "Retirement coverage has also declined."   Ditto.   What I'd like to see is exactly what the Democrats would do to change these two circumstances.   Rhetoric does not compel businesses to provide greater fringe benefits.   Competitive pressures do.   The only way to change the amount of benefits workers receive via governmental effort is to tax businesses and nationalize worker benefits.   France and much of Europe has done that.   Where has it left them?   At a competitive disadvantage which leads to reduced wages.

Dean sees the results of these bad economic times: "Americans are taking on more debt just to keep up in the Republican economy.   Last year, household debt was a record 132% of disposable income.   Not surprisingly, home mortgage foreclosures are also up; in March of this year, the foreclosure rate was 63% higher than last year."   Um, debt is up because people mortgaged their homes more as house values skyrocketed.   If you read any news over the past couple of years you would know that.   You'd also know that's at least partially why our economy has been soaring.   The other side of the debt thing has to do with education.   But Dean also addresses that.

"While wages and incomes have slowed, health costs increased, debt increased and retirement coverage declined, the cost of sending kids to college has exploded. Between 1995 and '96 and 2005 and '06, the average costs for a four-year private college rose 32% and for a four-year public college, 42%."   Gee whiz, that is a major concern.   But that is a trend which has been going on for a very long time, dating back to at least the 1970s.   And liberals are in charge of most, if not all, of the nation's Universities.   Would a Democrat controlled Congress be able to roll back tuition costs because they have an "in" with academics?   Again, specifics, please, Mr. Dean.

Dean does take a shot at what he sees as the cause of these problems.   "These dwindling economic fortunes have resulted partly from a decline in unionization, which has been exacerbated by the all-out assault of the Bush Republicans on workers' rights to organize and bargain.   From stripping away union protections for whole classes of workers to intervening in labor-management disputes in various industries, Mr. Bush, backed by a Republican Congress, has done more to undermine workers' rights than any president in more than 70 years."   Huh?   What did Bush do?

Mr. Dean, are you saying that if we increased union membership, we would see health care and retirement benefits increase, the forces would come home from Iraq, family debt and college tuition decrease, and as a result the homeland would be safer?

Dean ends by delineating numerous goals - the same goals which have appeared in every major political statement by either party for as long as I have been alive but which are never actually addressed by legislation sponsored by either party, let alone achieved.

"We will restore honesty in government."   OK, let's start by having the party remove folks like Menendez in New Jersey.

"We will restore the pay-as-you-go discipline in Congress that served Mr. Clinton so well."   Do you mean we'll cut military and intelligence spending to the bone in order to achieve a politically popular notion amongst the uneducated that deficit spending is always wrong?

"We will ease the burdens on middle class Americans and reverse Republican cuts in college tuition aid and health care."   Um, the tuition aid, to which most middle class working people are never entitled, costs plenty and has little impact on tuition rates other than to drive them up for those who have to pay out of pocket.

"We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, including pension reform, and preventing the privatization of social security."   Mr. Bush tried this and was rebuffed by Republican and Democrat alike.   Otherwise we would have begun privatization already.   Unfortunately, that is a dead issue.   And we'll pay dearly in the future for the folly of short-term thinking.

"We will dramatically expand support of energy independence in order to generate large numbers of new American jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil."   How can we do that without drilling ANWR or off the coast of Florida where the Chinese are now obtaining their oil, thanks to Cuban wells 45 miles off our coast?   If your plan is windmills, check with Ted Kennedy first.

"We will have a jobs agenda that includes good jobs that stay in America, a higher minimum wage and trade policies that benefit the global labor force, not just multinational corporations."   Uh, these are mutually exclusive but I suspect, Howie, you were at a frat party the day that class was taught in remedial economics.

"We will have a defense policy that is tough and smart, starting with phased redeployment of our troops in Iraq, and shore up our efforts to attack al Qaeda and fight the war on terror.   We also will close the gaps in our security here at home by implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations."   Geeze Louise, Howie.   How will we be tough and smart?   What does tough and smart mean?   You mean we'll bring the boys and girls back here so we can fight al Qaeda in a place where we have more people and resources for the fight - within the US?   Call me stupid but I thought the reaction to the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission was legislation passed by bi-partisan vote.   What more are Democrats going to do?

So Howard Dean wants a Democrat controlled US Congress.   He wants this so we can be "tough and smart."   He wants businesses to provide more benefits while paying a higher minimum wage, keeping jobs here and being more internationally competitive.   He wants to reinstate the marriage penalty.   This will cause us to be safer while paying less for college tuition.   The path to a greater America is clear, Unionize!