Republican presidential candidates say–all the time–that they hate budget deficits. A linchpin of each of their campaigns is a promise to slash government and eliminate the deficit and the national debt. So which one of them would accomplish this ambitious goal?

According to a new analysis from the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, none of them would. ... In fact, compared to what the fiscal watchdog calls a realistic budget baseline (that is, if the government continues on the track it’s on today) all of the GOP candidates, save for Ron Paul, would make matters worse.

Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich would make things far, far worse. Mitt Romney’s tax and spending plan wouldn’t bend the debt curve very much one way or the other. But, according to CRFB, if he doesn’t find a way to pay for his latest plan to cut tax rates by 20 percent Romney would significantly increase deficits and the debt as well.

Except for Paul, each of the candidates has the same problem. They have enthusiastically promised to cut taxes in very specific ways—sometimes by vast amounts. But when it comes to offsetting spending reductions or cuts in tax breaks, they mostly offer little more than platitudes.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/...e-the-deficit/

It's the same old Republican line that we've heard over and over. They (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about deficits when a Dem is in office, but the own plans are just more cut taxes and borrow.

It's like, "we fooled them once with Reagan, we fooled them again with Bush, why not fool them again?"

You reckon the American people are stupid enough to fall for it a third time?

I wouldn't bet against it.