[eraser2005]

If the President had cut spending early on, the way he cut taxes (8.1%), fiscal conservatives would be jumping for joy.

Very true... and the budget would be balanced. No one in DC will vote for a cut that big today, though. And even "reasonably" constrained spending now will take a decade to lead to a balanced budget. If we just gave back 1/3 of the Bush cuts, they'd still be as large as Reagan, and combined with constrained spending it would be only a few short years to a balanced budget. I'd vote for that, given implementation of pay-go rules. The Bush cuts have led to an average 3.8% growth, which is almost negligibly better than what occurred in the 90s post hike. The results are more consistent (less variation quarter-to-quarter), but long term trends are not significantly better.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>No one in DC will vote for a cut that big today, though.

To our fiscally challenged liberal and centrist Republican friends, I ask, just whose fault is it that federal spending isn't being reduced? Not Reagan's fault. Not Gingrich's fault eitrher. The fault lies with Bush43 and the majority GOP controlled Congress. The House holds the purse strings. Reagan worked wonders without the GOP controlled House in his corner. Speaker O'Neill and ML Howard Baker worked with Reagan. Bush43 has shown a consistantly liberal approach to spending and bureaucracy.

>>>>>If we just gave back 1/3 of the Bush cuts ...

Frankly, I don't advocate giving back any of the Bush43 tax cuts. Let's have more tax cutting. Lets have real tax reform. A flat percentage income tax would be great. Even a NRST would be better then the tax system we have in place today.

The economy is solid and overall, growth remains substantial. This is a good time to reduce the tax burden on Americans even further. And lets not wait anylonger. This is a good time to reduce federal spending too.