Aside from completely ignoring the chart and what it shows about incremental increases in spending, the leveling off and even slight reduction, you haven't pointed us to anything that disputes what the WSJ Journalist says, nor have you said how Romney is saying anything different that Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr. had said as a part of their policies and campaign.
You might also note the following, the date and the political affiliation, the business experience and accumen, business and otherwise of author and what he noted 9 years ago, along with a lot of other Republicans who are now no longer Republicans or don't buy into the "republican" "soultions" and policies since Reagan and the idea that widening the spending gap (spending more while reducing revenue) was somehow going to reduce both deficit spending and the national debt, without a substantial increase in employment and trade which means more taxable income (with rates staying the same or lower) and other taxable transactions. The Bush tax cuts said they would reduce the deficit and raise revenue, but you can only raise revenue if you cut tax rates by a marked INCREASE in employment or other taxes to offset the cuts in rates. If you both cut rates and add spending, then the spending gap is widened and debt increases meaning you need MORE revenue, not less, to pay the goverment's bills, if only to pay for the extra fees and interest in the additional money borrowed because there was a shortfall in revenue. IF the private sector had done as they said they would with the cut in tax rates (tax cut) and actually invested it in jobs and businesses here in the U.S., instead of abroad, more Americans would be employed and thus paying taxes and the deficit would be smaller, not larger and revenue might actually be enough to pay the nation's annual expenses and pay off some debt principle.
If FEWER Americans are employed and tax rates cut, even if spending remains the same, the deficit is larger than it would be if employment went down and tax rates went up. In addition, for all the people that whine about too much government, why are they waiting in the govermnent to solve the nation's problems when they were the ones that said if only they had a tax cut (which they have since 2001 and 2003) they would grow the economy and jobs? Why aren't they out there proving that there is no need for government instead of crashing the nation's economy then whining about both bailing them out and the cost to them to do so?
It's kind of like the bratty unruly kid who takes the family car totals it and lands in jail for driving without a license and reckless driving, then whining about how much his parents spent to fix the car, pay the increased insurance premiums and balance that with what the other kids in the family will be deprived of because of cost to the family of his reckless and irresponsible behavior. He might actually have learned something from it all and said yes, I was a jerk, I cost my parents and siblings money and pain and they are right to not trust me with the keys to the car for some time now. That's remorse and what remorse generally does is demonstrate someone knew they did something bad and recognize and acknowledge how it hurt others. That makes them less of a jerk. The real jerks are the one's who will try to deflect what they did onto their parents and siblings as if no one might notice how anyone would believe that BS.
The following was written in 2003:
"I have belonged to the Republican Party all my life. As a Republican, I have served as a cabinet member (once), a presidential commission member (three times), an all-purpose political ombudsman (many times) and a relentless crusader whom some would call a crank (throughout). Among the bedrock principles that the Republican Party has stood for since its origins in the 1850's is the principle of fiscal stewardship -- the idea that government should invest in posterity and safeguard future generations from unsustainable liabilities. It is a priority that has always attracted me to the party. At various times in our history (especially after wars), Republican leaders have honored this principle by advocating and legislating painful budgetary retrenchment, including both spending cuts and tax hikes."
"Over the last quarter century, however, the Grand Old Party has abandoned these original convictions. Without ever renouncing stewardship itself -- indeed, while talking incessantly about legacies, endowments, family values and leaving ''no child behind'' -- the G.O.P. leadership has by degrees come to embrace the very different notion that deficit spending is a sort of fiscal wonder drug. Like taking aspirin, you should do it regularly just to stay healthy and do lots of it whenever you're feeling out of sorts."
The rest of it is here.......
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/08/m...ts-and-dysfunction.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
