If the GNP grows, the government takes in more tax money. If the tax rates remain constant and spending does not increase, the deficit will go down. It really is that simple.

If, on the other hand, you intend to cut taxes and continue to burn money like the autumn leaves on some stupid, misguided war, the boundary conditions of the previous statement won't be met. And the deficit won't go down. In fact, we need the deficit to disappear and become a surplus so that we can pay down our debt. If the you had credit card debt that, paying the minimum, sucked up the percentage of your income that the USG is spending on debt service, you'd be bankrupt. But the gov can print money... I mean T-Bonds and T-Bills....

"...and maybe time has put some of the luster back on the Gipper's reputation."

Kinda like how Nixon was referred to as "elder statesman" before the devil came to collect his due.

Funny how Republicans accuse the Dems of identity politics when they probably would have gone the way of the Whigs without them.

I'd like to express some skepticism about the efficacy of wrapping yourself with the mantle of Reagan as a way of getting votes. Is there any empirical data that shows that this works outside of the Republican base? In fact, didn't Bill Clinton center his whole 1992 campaign on running AGAINST Reagan? If I remember correctly, the Clinton rhetoric was all about Reagan/Bush, which makes me think that Clinton knew there was a political ADVANTAGE to be gained by linking Bush to his predecessor. Now you can say that this was true in 1992 because voters were weary of 12 years of uninterrupted Republican rule, and maybe time has put some of the luster back on the Gipper's reputation. But I think that one of the big things that people still remember about Reagan/Bush is that they ran up huge deficits which looked insurmountable in 1992, which the Clinton Administration managed to get under control. Personally I think that the Republicans who try to claim the mantle of Reagan only end up making fools of themselves, because they're all transparantly trying to be something that they're not. I would guess that a large percentage of the people who voted for Ronald Reagan liked Reagan the man more than they necessarily liked Reaganomics.

You hint at this, but it needs to be said more explicitly:

"...we had 10 percent unemployment, 20 percent interest rates, and 10 percent inflation, if I've got those numbers right." (McCain)

You don't have those numbers right, Senator, not that it stopped you.

"10 percent unemployment" According to the BLS[1], the seasonally adjusted employment rate for individuals 16 years and older in 1980 ranged between 6.3 and 7.8 percent, not "10 percent." (Unemployment peaked at 10.4 percent in 1983, three years into the Reagan presidency. They didn't fall below the January 1980 level of 6.3 percent until April of 1987.)

"20 percent interest rates" The federal funds rate when Reagan took over in January 1980 was 13.82 percent, according to the Fed[2]. It spiked to 17.61 in April, then declined until September, eventually climbing to 18.90 in December. The high-water mark for Reagans Presidency was set in June of 1981, at 19.10.

"10 percent inflation" This is a curious number. A dollar in 1980 had the buying power of $2.57 now (again according to the BLS), indicating that there has been a 157% price change, which some would characterize as 157% inflation. The BLS quotes CPI as month-over-month change; no month in 1979 ever had more than 1.2 percent change, and it hasn't been over 2 in the last thirty years. One wonders if he just thought "10 percent" sounded scary.

Giving McCain the benefit of the doubt, we'll look at percent change from the start of 1979. The CPI in January of 1979 was 68.50; in December it was 76.90, for a change of +8.4, about 12 percent change. Summing up percent changes for 1979 (which is an incorrect measure of percent change YoY, but is quick and convenient) also gives us a number around 12. So McCain's still wrong, but this time the error favors Carter, not Reagan. (By the same math, Reagan had "10 percent inflation" through 1980, then 7 in 1981, but ran below 5 percent the rest of his term.)

Three swings, three misses. All of them egregious errors, two of them obscenely flattering to Reagan. I doubt Senator McCain is lying, insofar as you have to know what's true to lie. Those numbers sound suspiciously like he just made them up.

So it's more likely that he doesn't care what the truth is, he'll just say what he thinks will make us agree with him. We've had that for eight years; I think I'll take a pass on four more.

References:

[1] http://data.bls.gov (Their web interface doesn't give me a precise URL, sorry.)

[2] http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data/Monthly/H15_FF_O.txt

McCain may be polling pretty well right now against Clinton/Obama.

That's because Clinton/Obama are spending most of their time bashing each other. So are their campaign people and supporters. It's a freaky little side show.

Once it ends, the Dems will turn their focus on McCain.

Then, McCain is toast.

Clinton/Obama will wipe him out in any debate. It won't be pretty. I'll actually feel sorry for the guy.

Personally, I don't hate McCain. I think he'd be a great guy if he was somebody's uncle you met at a barbecue. I'd love to sit down with him for a game of cards, or maybe to do shots of whiskey while watching porn. (Just kidding.)

But man, do I not want him leading the country.

McCain was confused about Shiites and Sunnis when it comes to Al Qaeda in Iraq.

I'm not half as concerned that McCain knows nothing about economics as I am that plenty of voters don't, either. To them, this will make sense. McCain says this gobbledygook with a smile, tosses in Reagan's name, and half the country says, yeah, that sounds about right.

Clinton and Obama would be performing a public service if they got out there with the points you made here.

... that there is no idea so idiotic that a politician can't be found to believe in it.