So Ben Stein, writing in an oh-so-self-assured-yet-casual style, wants to raise your taxes.

He said so in the New York Times, which exists to satisfy the smug Upper West Side with a Republican mea culpa every now and then.

This is a remarkably brain-dead piece from an intelligent, funny man.

Here is his argument: the government needs the money and it is time to be adult and “responsible” and give the money-addict feds what they crave.

Stein cites Eisenhower as a responsible president, even though his veto of a huge congressional tax cut drove the nation into recession in 1953 and the Republicans from the House of Representatives for 40 years. (A tax cut similar to the one Eisenhower vetoed was signed into law in 1961 by President Kennedy, lowering the top income-tax rate from 91% to 70%. The long 1960s economic boom began shortly thereafter.) If Stein cares at all about economic prosperity, he should be championing tax cuts, not hikes.

Next he tells us that Reagan was an irresponsible spender. True, government spending in the Reagan years scaled new heights. But the House of Representatives writes the budget, not the president–and the House is given that right in the Constitution. Reagan’s calls to close unnecessary federal agencies (like the Urban Mass Transit outfit, which is properly a state or city function) and privatize others were ignored by the Democratic-party led Congress. Finally, he writes that President Clinton was “responsible” because deficit spending was eliminated on his watch. Yes, it was. By a Republican Congress. So if Stein is concerned about spending, he should be addressing his column to Nancy Pelosi, not John McCain.

And he tries the old dodge that virtually all federal spending is “non-discretionary” (social security, welfare, military, debt service and so on). “Non-discretionary” is simply a political dodge. We elect politicians to make tough decisions. Tough decisions can be unpopular. So the elected deciders say that cannot decide. In truth, in our democracy, all spending is a political decision. And a refusal to decide is a discretionary decision.

What to do? Simple. Follow the lead of Western European countries and start to privatize government-run operations. The Netherlands privatized its post office more than a decade ago. Britain privatized its water-treatment plants, under the Labour government. Sweden privatized half of the public housing in Stockholm and half of social security nationwide.

It will happen eventually. The only way the federal government is going to pay the tab for the retirement of the Baby Boomers will be to privatize. We could start with Amtrak, PBS, NPR, Fannie and Freddie Mac. The list is long.

The responsible,adult thing to do is cut spending. Or does Stein think we absolutely must have a federal agency that decides what flavors of tea should be permitted?