Leave it to the LA Times to bitch about the Bush tax cut, claim our deficit is too high, and lecture about socking our children with a huge bill in the future, and never once suggest cutting spending, or even practicing fiscal restraint. In fact, spending was never even mentioned at all.

The administration's tax cuts are the economic equivalent of steroids; they may quickly pump up the economy, but the long-term effect on fiscal health will be dire.
[...]

Unless Congress shakes its tax cut fever, it will indeed taketh away - from future generations that must pay back a mountain of debt while trying to sort out health care and the other costly problems that this government has decided to ignore.

Naturally, they also threw in social security as a bogeyman scare tactic to try to bolster their claim. Nevermind that social security is separate from the federal income tax, and has not been cut. In fact, the only relation social security has to the equation is that Congress is using that money to finance their current big government vote buying programs; something they have done since it's inception.

While they use social security as a scare tactic for seniors, they place the bulk of the blame on Bush and corporations; as if corporations are huge nameless, faceless organizations. With a straight face, the LA Times suggests that corporations have a civic duty to pay higher taxes, and are somehow un-American for looking for ways to avoid paying income tax. Of course, anyone who knows anything about economics could tell you that corporations are made up of people. While company's first duties are to the shareholders, both employees and customers have a vested interest in a corporations success. Corporations do not hold wealth, and any savings or lower cost structure is distributed between shareholders, employees, and/or customers.

To hear the Times, however, corporations are robber-barons, raping the land and stealing money from peasants who are forced into servitude.