Dear Mav

Yes, but the GDP AND tax revenue INCREASED

And spending (non-domestic) still increased. So even though GDP increased by 55%, spending on defense rose even faster. Corporate and Income taxes didn't keep pace with the spending and, in fact, declined. Domestic spending increased in dollars but as a percentage, it declined. The growth in GDP didn't help. Reagan tried to borrow us out of a recession based on supply side theory which didn't work.

Its all in the percentages, not the absolute dollars. If I earn $30,000 a year and spend all of it on living, I'm breaking even. If my income suddenly goes up 50% to $45,000, and by expenses go up 60%, oops, I'm $3800 in the hole. In this case, expenses went up before the income was realized. Both domestic and defense spending increased in absolute dollars. But defense increased at a faster rate. If W tries the same trick, we could well see the same result. It only works if the economy grows.

Texas and Florida are now facing budget problems due to revenue shortfalls. Since the economy has been booming for the last 8 years or so, you'd expect that something would have been put aside for a rainy day. Instead, there were fairly substantial tax breaks given and now Florida faces some very tough choices. Jeb's answer was to propose even more tax cuts, of course.

Reagan had a deal with the unscrupulous democRATS amounting to $2 in spending cuts for every additional $1 in increased revenue. Guess what, Dutch was "stupid" enough to trust the crooks. It must make you proud.

Except that domestic spending declined as a percentage of GDP, defense spending didn't. Sounds like Reagan didn't keep his side of the bargin.

The brilliant commucRATS are responsible for that one (remember they had both houses?), Tip: "TAX THE BLEEPING POOR"

No. It was a joint effort of democrats and Republicans with Reagan urging them on. After all, the wage earners don't have much of a lobby. GOOD!...DO IT AGAIN!

Absolutely. How many times will it take before it sinks in that maybe you really can't spend your way to prosperity.

Yes, what it boils down to is, the rest of the world has been successfully RECYCLING their nuclear fuel rods while Jimmy Carter has them burying the RADIOACTIVE NUCLEAR WASTE in YOUR BACK YARD! (Genius)

Actually, I was talking about his statement that environmental considerations for things like placement of power-lines, pipe-lines and power plants without having to worry all that much about environmental impact.

As to recycling of radioactive wastes, that was the result of a massive lobbying effort by the utilities. The AEC has a long history of proving itself to be a relatively cheap whore. The utilities paid and the AEC delivered. With the familiar mantra "Because it will cost too much money". Just like ergonomics wasn't cost effective. Its all a matter of what's more important. People or profits.

Meanwhile back at the ranch (CA) Hydro-electric, coal, oil, natural gas and wind power elecrtic generating plants are all unacceptable.

Not really since by next year new generating plants will be on line. The crisis is temporary and lots of blame to share. The State for proposing a stupid regulatory scheme, the utilities for accepting it with eyes wide open, the consumers for not conserving, either passively or actively.

Now california claims that billions in profits were illegal and wants the Utilities to refund the money. Be interesting to see how the Feds respond.

On to more interesting territory.

During the campaign, W claimed (repeatedly) that his goal was that "no child be left behind"

Strangely, in Texas at the time they were being left behind. Until a Federal judge found Texas in violation of federal law and ordered the State to comply with Federal regulations. Strangely under reported by the mythic "liberal press".

And now that he is ensconced in Washington, the "compassionate conservative manifests as he has proposed:

1. Cuts in the already modest funding for child- care assistance for low-income families.

2. Cuts in funding for programs designed to investigate and combat child abuse.

3. Cuts in an important new program to train pediatricians and other doctors at children's hospitals across the U.S.

4. To cut off all of the money provided by Congress for an "early learning" trust fund, which is an effort to improve the quality of child care and education for children under 5. But then, these (and similar) programs tend to benefit the poor and those on welfare who, apparently, somehow don't deserve help. Of course we are talking about children here, but if they have no ,more sense than to be born poor, well, they deserve what ever W's going to make sure they don't get.

Bartholomew,

The real problems that I see are not rampaging big government, or loss of personal freedom. I see a consistant degradation of the environment. A growing reliance on rapidly depleting fossil fuels and the nuclear alternative. Parochial thinking. A growing disparity in the distribution of wealth.

Environmental degredation and the rest have a cause. I'd argue that the loss (whether by choice or fiat) of personal freedom and responsibility are root causes. The environment may be a problem that requires a more immediate solution but in the end , along with big governemnt, big business and the rest, it is a symptom. We ignore the disease at our peril.

Regards

John