The leaders of the Cult of the Cut, whose axiomatic belief is "tax cuts, spending cuts good; any other fiscal policy bad, deficits be damned" warned darkly last week about an ominous, imminent tax increase. Cult leaders - a small band of administration royloyalists - took the unprecedented step of alerting the nation to this prospect by issuing a White House press release entitled "The Largest Tax Increase in History Is Looming."

The urgent tone of the press release reflects their belief that "In this time of economic uncertainty, one of the worst things we could do to our economy is raise taxes on the American people. Thanks in part to the President's tax relief, our economy continues to grow." [Emph. theirs]. Let us set aside the prescience behind the assertion that, after a contraction of GDP growth from 4.6 percent in the last quarter of 2007 to less than one percent in the first quarter of 2008, the nation's economy is in fact growing.

Instead, let us marvel at the even more impressive predictive powers implied by certainty that our economy will be weak and uncertain two and a half years from now. For it is not until January 1, 2011, that Congress will need to have figured what to do about the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, which will expire on that day.

Nevertheless, the White House insists that "Congress Needs To Act Now To Prevent Tax Increases. If the President's tax relief is allowed to expire, every income taxpayer will see an increase." We are left to wonder where the imminent tax threat is coming from. It is certainly not contained in any congressional proposal now on the table. A careful examination of the budget resolution (these don't become law anyway, since they are not signed by the president) for Fiscal Year 2009 that congressional Democrats have devised reveals no such tax increase; indeed, no tax increase at all is planned for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013. It's simply not there.

Might this be a hysterical hallucination? Or is it perhaps in the proposals of the presidential candidates? Again, no. The Democratic candidates have proposed extending the Bush tax cuts for everybody except for those making over $250,000 a year. Some might think this is where the Trojan soldiers are hiding. But not really. 98 percent of all taxpayers would be unaffected by this proposal. The richest two percent, taken together, would provide about $140 billion each year in additional revenues, according to the Tax Policy Center.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that GDP will be $16.7 trillion in 2011, which means the tax change would be six-tenths of 1 percent of GDP. By that measure, this plan would be the fifth-largest increase enacted since 1943. OK, fifth, first, what's the difference? Maybe history didn't begin in 1943 - whatever, don't let the claim get clouded by facts - Congress should act "now."

Is this a good time to demonstrate maximum fiscal irresponsibility? If this a safe time to refuse to pay for any of the $100 billion in taxes cuts we need this year to patch the Alternative Minimum Tax and to continue with the (mostly corporate) tax loopholes called "the extenders"? Is this an auspicious moment to conceal from the American people the costs of the global war on terror, for which the administration has budgeted no spending during FY 2010-FY 2013? Is it sane to extend the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts across the board right now? Between 2001 and 2006, the passage of the Bush tax cuts without the offsetting savings have cost $1.2 trillion in lost revenues - more than 80 percent of the cumulative deficit during this period. And this does not account for the cost in additional interest expense facing the nation.

There are many other considerations to bring to bear in assessing what seems an ill-timed, intemperate plea to pursue cult dogma when it comes to fiscal policy. There will be plenty of time - a couple of years, at least, if we need it - to study the equity side of the equation on the debate over whether or not to extend Bush's tax cuts before their expiration in January 2011. Nor do we have space here to weigh the economic factors in the debate - though it is consoling to know that we have ample time in which to do so.

For now, it is sufficient to note the administration's hyperventilation with dispassionate curiosity and calmly reflect that the fiscal policy issues it raises are, no doubt, ones of tremendous magnitude. But one of the worst things we could do right now would be to make any precipitous decisions because some Cassandras say that the largest tax increase in history is looming.