WHAT'S THE POINT in having a debate with a closed mind? The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne wants a debate on the fundamental (economic) issues affecting America. Here's how he formulates the spending issue:

The unemployment numbers would be much better without the massive loss of government jobs, and private-sector job growth would, in turn, be higher as those public workers spent money.

Is it even possible for Dionne to understand that those government jobs -- the public workers' 'spending money' -- came from the very pockets of the proles they want to spend it on? That has to be either the dumbest argument I've ever heard or a stalking horse for redistribution -- or both.