This skeptical accountant says, "I'll believe it when I see it!" Politicians seem to universally have trouble with the concept that debits must equal credits.

Too soon to be sure, yes, but the threat of a veto saved us tens of billions, and the leveling of the revenue side augers well for d e b t reduction.

I would argue "debits equals credits" is not good enough, Dagny. It seems dangerous to focus on that (deficit) and not on total revenue (coercion) distribution of revenue (coercion) and the incredible lameness and coercion involved in the spending.

Not good enough? This is not a question of, "good enough." It is an indisputable fact of accounting that debits must equal credits. It really is that simple. Governments actually produce nothing (US Postal Service excluded) and therefore ALL government expenditures must be equalled by some combination of taxes (revenues) and d e b t. Additionally the d e b t must, eventually, be paid off with those same tax revenues.

Arguments abound over the best way to squeeze the most tax revenue from those who do produce, and reducing tax RATES to increase production is a valid strategy. The bottom line remains that ALL government expenditures will be paid for (plus interest) by those of us who lead productive lives. It is further true that the politicians (from both sides of the aisle) insist on obscuring, ignoring, and avoiding this truth.

What is worse is that the general American public, eyeball deep in credit card d e b t, allows and even encourages this obfuscation.

I don't know whether we're arguing or not.

I am trying to short-circuit those in Congress who say that we cannot have tax cuts until we have spending cuts. Then, we can never really have spending cuts because, you know...the system is very difficult, and, well, interests are entrenched, and, well, see, the riders are not really conducive to accountability and...

I think that tax cuts fuel business and investment while they starve spending. I'd rather not cause or worsen a deficit, but I will trade it for tax cuts about every time.

I agree JK that these signs are better than they might have been, but I'm sure you can appreciate the frustration of those of us who believe Mr. Bush's 'capital' should be spent not only on fighting Islamofascists, but on structural reform of the federal fiscal apparatus. Keeping "non-defense spending growth to around 2%" or slightly above inflation, does not inspire optimism that Bush's second term will see any change in the status of the federal government as the world's largest "employer."

If I came across as argumentative, I apologize. I agree that tax cuts can come before spending cuts but you are talking about policy while I am, as usual, talking about philosophy. You are praising a small policy change that may result in more appropriate government.

I am condemning a philosophical negligence that borders on the criminal. If legislators had a correct philosophy and sufficient knowledge regarding accounting the results would be consistently correct policies and not a continuous struggle by us, "deficit hawks," for every penny and through every appropriations bill.

I FEEL your pain, brother and Sister. I would love to see reduction in federal coercion. But 2% growth would be a cause for celebration (I think it has been 27% over the first Bush term).

Second, we knew the W was not a small government conservative. It was neither in his rhetoric nor his gubernatorial tenure in Texas. It's the thing that will keep me from placing him in the same class as Reagan.

Our argument, jg and Dagny, always comes down to political possibility. I cheered when the GOP spoke of dismantling the Department of Education in 1996 but the electorate saw it as child-hatred rather than Federalism.

I don't think that there is anything close to a plurality for <2% growth in non-military spending. I wish there were but I will not lose elections by "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Nor shall we, good friend. But now that the lesser evil has won the election it's incumbent on all of us to speak for the good and against the evil in his mixed bag of policies.

I appreciate your pragmatism. I am still reeling from so many in your camp (if that is fair) who would not vote to reelect President Bush because he is not some libertarian paragon. And, again, that's fine but liberty minded people who did not see a clear difference made me nervous.

My wish is to bring those people into the Republican fold. Not only do I want their votes and their money, I really want their ideas -- and I feel it is the best hope for our shared ideas to blossom.