Both candidates are campaigning on cutting taxes. The back-and-forth is who will do it, who won't, which income classes will get more or less, and so on. There have been several independent analyses of the campaign plans of both candidates which has provided some clarification. That hasn't changed the allegations and advertising of the respective campaigns, of course.

But in the midst of the campaign we have encountered an unprecedented financial crisis. The effects will be extraordinarily expensive and long-lasting. We won't know for certain how much resolving the crisis will cost, but at the moment it appears to be somewhere in excess of $1 trillion. Adding what may be significantly reduced revenues resulting from a slowing economy and reduced tax receipts, the effect on deficits and the national debt almost certainly will be severely damaging. We'll know better when the incoming President presents his proposals for a federal budget in the first couple of years of his administration. By then, the actual costs and effects will be more measurable.

So a question we should all consider--an issue that should be discussed by the candidates, but probably won't be--is as follows...


If it is unlikely that any sort of tax cut makes fiscal sense in the situation the U.S. finds itself in, then why shouldn't the electorate simply ignore the "tax cut" claims being made by both candidates and concentrate on understanding their opposing views on other important issues? I might suggest--staying with fiscal issues--that we have a thorough understanding of how both candidates propose to create a balanced federal budget and begin to work on reducing our overwhelming national debt. Sarah Palin was campaigning today saying, "John McCain and I will balance the budget by the end of our first term." Is it reasonable to ask...HOW?