Bloomberg columnist Caroline Baum gently reminds us that not every tax cut achieves its intended effect.

Case study: The 2001 Bush Administration federal income tax cut, which included a cut in the marginal tax rate to 35% from 39.6%. The Bush Administration touted it as a tax cut that would increase incentives to invest, save and work.

The result? The tax cut didn't work: saving and investment have been "anemic" during the Bush years, Baum said, citing data provided by Paul Kasriel, chief economist at Northern Trust Corp. in Chicago. Business investment is down, the savings rate is at a post-World War II low. Further, the labor participation rate has declined.

No guarantee tax cut would be invested in U.S.

But why didn't cutting the top marginal rate do all of the good things the Bush Administration touted? Economist Peter Dawson said the reason is the tax cut's inherent flaw.

"The tax cut contained the mistaken belief that rich taxpayers would invest their money and invest in the right way, in the U.S., to increase GDP," Dawson said. "There was no guarantee that they would do that. Someone who is rich could invest the money in Brazil or India, with little benefit for the United States."

The nearly always-on-the-mark Bloomberg News columnist Caroline Baum reminds investors/traders -- and potential home buyers -- that one should not jump into summer by jumping into a home purchase (if you can avoid it).

Baum notes that one has to view April's 6.3% increase in existing home sales in the proper context: housing has been down so much and for so long that every incremental pop up looks like a housing sector recovery. It isn't.

New and existing home sales peaked in July 2005 and September 2005, respectively, but housing starts didn't until January 2006. The result? A massive inventory build.

A record housing recession

Single-family starts are down 63% from their January 2006 peak, easily 'topping' peak-to-trough declines of 38% in 1973-75, and 57% in 1984-1991, and approaching the 65% slide in the housing recession of 1977-1981, Baum says.

Caroline Baum over at Bloomberg wrote today that the Democratic candidates for major public office -- who have crossed Iowa recently with negative-speak about the world's largest retailer -- should shop there. Why? Because, Wal-Mart saves the average American family roughly $2,300 per year, according to Global Insight. In other words, Baum is saying that the Democratic politicians currently on a dragon-slaying mission against Wal-Mart should remove themselves from their perches and actually visit and shop there.

Regardless of your position, it's always a great idea to immerse yourself in whatever environment you current are lauding or despising, to ensure what your experience is matches with your pre-conceived notions and bias. We all have biases -- some just choose not to admit it. Politicians, as usual, love to stir up emotional issues to garner emotional votes, and the current war in progress, gasoline prices and retailing behemoths qualify as emotional lighting rods for these folks.

The fact is that workers choose to work at Wal-Mart, and larger companies (and any company) don't "owe" a certain wage or benefits to workers. It's a capitalistic choice to provide these things, unless America was a socialist country the last time I looked (not yet). While I don't agree with Wal-Mart's pay scale or benefits, which don't really provide the level of comfort needed for a family, the company is not handcuffing employees to the store, are they? I agree with Baum on this one.

Brian White has worked in various executive positions in technology and telecommunications and now focuses on editing and writing.