Dear PV,

I agreed with [Mr. Dawkins' article] up to the point where the author said: "And while it spends and spends and spends, it’s cutting tax revenues. This is exactly what happened to Ronald Reagan."

This is untrue. The Democrats spent and spent and spent until they had more than spent all of the additional revenue that came in because of the Reagan tax cuts. In other words, although Reagan had doubled tax revenues (Income), the had increased spending enough to double the outlay - and then some. It really irks me that financially challenged people (not the author) still attribute the growth in the deficit during Reagan to the tax cuts. I actually heard a so-called financial advisor say this on Radio. And the guy actually has his own radio show. Go figure.

Let's say I have a job that pays $50,000 per year. For sake of argument, let's say my expenses exactly match my income. Then the boss decides I am underpaid and gives me a 100% raise. I'm so happy that I buy a really expensive car, a new house, servants, etc. The total increase in annual expenses, with taxes, is $140,000. Guess what!? I have a budget deficit. That is exactly what the money- rubbing Democrats did to our country during Reagan's terms. It had nothing at all to do with the tax cuts.

I think the argument could be made that the deficit would have grown by the entirety of the tax revenues - plus - had it not been for Reagan. Also, we must accept the fact that Reagan was responsible for some of the increased spending. For instance, he was so reckless as to completely defeat the greatest threat our country has ever known - the Soviet Union - without firing a single shot. He defeated them economically (through Star wars, etc.). I have heard Libs omplaining about that and they now maintain that THEIR policies of ppeasement and giving the USSR more funds (while cutting back on our own weapons programs) would have had the same effect. Makes you wonder how many IQ points one must have to sacrifice to be a Liberal.

William Carpenter