To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (1767 ) 2/10/2001 10:54:21 AM From: jttmab Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284 Reagan pretty much told the electorate what they wanted to hear. A sad commentary on the electorate but, more sadly, still true today. I'm not sure that I recall that every one of the proposed budgets exceeded that of final appropriations bills, but Reagan certainly was no "small government" kind of President in practice. All the information is available for anyone that doubts it and is inclined to look. Much of politics, at best, is he who has the best rhetoric, death taxes, marriage penalty, small government, efficient government, etc.. It doesn't much matter to the electorate what the underlying facts are and how narrowly they might be packaged to appear "good". Such a simple task to wave a hand and cut the budget. An equally simple phrase to say "there's 20% waste". Sen Trent Lott tells me that Americans will pay off their loans with the tax cut. President Bush tells me that it will stimulate the economy. Yet Americans have higher comparable salaries, lower taxes, less expensive products than that of most of Europe and we're still saving less on a per capita basis. Why would one possibly think that Americans will pay off debt? [I doubt the Lott thinks it would]. And if you look at the distribution of actual dollars from the tax cuts, what kind of economic stimulus should one expect. Investment capital is not lacking in the economy. I wouldn't single out the Baby boomers either, the impact is across all ages and the entire economic ladder, with the exception of the higher end. I don't know how many saw the story a week or so ago, but the "business leaders" [A group that is not typically thought of as liberal] of Northern Virginia were calling for an increase in sales tax, to build more infrastructure. Basically, get the masses to fund corporate growth objectives in an area that is already overwhelmed with traffic jams and concrete. jttmab