An op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal titled "Tax Bomb" outlines the effects and historical significance if some Democrats in Congress get their way and the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire.

As the presidential campaign enters its final stages, there will be increased debate over budget priorities and how they will be paid for. Many commentators and political leaders, including Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, believe that tax increases are needed to restore near-term budget balance and finance longer-term entitlement growth.

These claims fail budget arithmetic and economics. Worse, they raise serious questions about the nation's broad fiscal policies and its commitment to economic growth.

By historical standards, federal revenues relative to GDP, at 18.8% last year, are high. In the past 25 years, this level was only exceeded during the five years from 1996 to 2000. Still, we stand on the verge of a very large tax increase, one that will occur unless the next Congress and president agree to rescind it. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will drive the personal income tax burden up by 25% – to its highest point relative to GDP in history.
 
This would be the largest increase in personal income taxes since World War II. It would be more than twice as large as President Lyndon Johnson's surcharge to finance the war in Vietnam and the war on poverty. It would be more than twice the combined personal income tax increases under Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The increase would push total federal government revenues relative to GDP to 20%. ...

...Proponents of bigger government invariably argue that allowing all or some of President Bush's tax cuts to expire is necessary in the near term to balance the federal budget, and necessary in the longer term to finance the retirement and health-care promises made to the baby-boom generation. But a tax increase is neither wise nor necessary.

As has so often been true in the past, the economic damage caused by the tax increases and tax avoidance behavior will prevent the promised revenues from being realized. At the same time, the promise of higher revenues will encourage Congress to continue its profligate spending. As a result, a tax increase won't lower the budget deficit.

Moreover, current tax rates can be maintained and even reduced and still allow for necessary increases in national security appropriations and the balancing of the federal budget. Although budget balance may not be achieved overnight, a firm commitment by the next president to spending control will enable balance by the end of his or her first term.

Reducing spending, not raising taxes, is the only proven method to fiscal balance.  Raising taxes will not only immediately hurt our economy, but continue the trend of fiscal imbalance that will tie the hands of future generations.

The New York Times is reporting that, after earlier criticizing outside groups' involvement in the primary elections, including Big Labor, Senator Obama is now displayed prominently on the SEIU's web page and is receiving millions of dollars in support.  Oddly enough, he's now gone silent with his criticism of their efforts.

Senator Barack Obama is receiving significant help in Pennsylvania from the Service Employees International Union and an affiliated health care local, pumping $976,000 into the state in door-to-door canvassing for him. ...

But Mr. Obama, flush with cash, has remained silent about the help he has received from the politically active S.E.I.U. To date, the union has spent $5.2 million on his behalf in several states, and its 1,199 hospital affiliates have added $513,000 for the campaign effort.