[sailaway21]

PB alluded to it some time back and, of course, sck5 ignores it, but it's interesting that sck's canidate is proposing very expensive new government programs. Given sck5's concern with deficits one would think that we should have a tax increase to pay for what we're already not paying for now. Why would we increase spending when we're already in the hole?

If any credit is due the government for the deficit reduction during the 90's, and that's a dubious proposition, it's due to Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. Welfare spending used to be non-discretionary spending as well. Non-discretionary spending on social security could be reduced merely by changeing the retirement age from 63 to 70, a perfectly sensible idea given the nature of the social security safety net.

The only route to deficit reduction is fiscal discpline within the Congress and a growing economy. You grow your way out of deficits, you don't tax your way out.

As for what Republicans have done; when I graduated from college I immediately went from pauper status to the fifty per cent tax bracket under a tax code that had the top bracket at nearly 70%. Reagan changed that by forcing through tax code reform. "Bracket creep" coupled with inflation were responsible for citizens making the same, or even less, money and yet entering a higher tax bracket because the tax code was not indexed for inflation. Reagan and the Republicans changed that.

The irony to all of this is that, absent the recent congress, deficit reduction is a Republican issue. That sck5 chooses to trumpet it is quite interesting as you'll not hear a peep about cutting spending from his canidate for the presidency. That's because he's got a whole passle of new spending planned.

Remember, we had to have Carter so we could get Reagan. I'm also not unimpressed by the fact that we might be trailing Yurrup in this case. How ironic it would be that Europe is tossing the libs out, correctly, just as America seems all set to elect the biggest one we've seen in years.