By Gary Gerard, Managing Editor

I know I have been over this before, but these days it seems pretty important that people understand the concept of taxes.

President W has proposed a $1.6- trillion tax cut over 10 years and the Democrats are really upset about this.

They just can't stand the thought of that much money being withheld from the U.S. Treasury.

So they start saying things to make people believe that tax cuts are bad things.

After W's speech there was a Democrat response. In it we were warned that W's plan would plunge us back into the deficits of the Reagan years.

OK, that really bugs me.

I have one question for people who think that way. Was it deficit taxing that got us into budget trouble in the '80s or was it deficit spending?

If you believe what the Democrats are saying about taxes, then you must believe federal budget deficits are caused by people being taxed too little.

That, of course, is patent and overt nonsense.

Deficits are created because government spends too much.

Do you think Americans are taxed too little or do you think government spends too much?

It's a simple question. Just answer it and we'll move on. Apparently, some politicians can't get past it.

It's tough for me to understand why it is so difficult for them to grasp such a basic concept.

When you lower taxes, there is more money available for people to spend and businesses to invest.

When people buy more stuff and businesses invest more there are more jobs and wages are higher.

When there are more jobs and wages are higher, there are more people paying taxes and at higher levels.

I am not making this up. And you don't have to take my word for it.

All you need do is look at the Internal Revenue Service Data Book. Try Table 4 - Internal Revenue Collections by Principal Sources.

It shows the total IRS collections by year.

During the 1980s - the "Decade of Greed" as it was called by Bill and Hillary - revenue to the Treasury increased dramatically.

Now remember, these are the "Reagan deficit" years the Democrats are talking about.

In 1980, the IRS collected $519 billion. By 1989, revenue to the Treasury topped $1 trillion for the first time.

Does it seem to you that the government failed to collect enough taxes during those years?

I don't think so.

And remember, Reagan's tax policy was one of cuts - not increases.

Now let's take a look at the spending side of the equation.

That historical budget data can be found in the Congressional Budget Office publication, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2002-2011." In it we find Table 1, Deficits, Surpluses, Debt and Related Series, Fiscal Years 1961-2000.

First, it is interesting to note that deficit spending is nothing new to our government.

From 1961 to 2000 there were only four years when the government didn't spend more than it collected from taxpayers.

And three of those were the last three - 1998, 1999 and 2000. The other year was 1969. In every other year, there was deficit spending.

Let's look at spending during that awful decade of greed.

In 1980, the government spent $74 billion more than it collected. By 1986 the government spent $221 billion more than it collected in revenue.

And remember, revenue was rising dramatically during those years.

The deficit spending dipped a bit, to around $150 billion during 1987-89, but shot up again to a high of $290 billion by 1992.

Revenue collected for 1992 was $1,120,799,598,000. Even at that the government was able to spend $290,000,000,000 than it collected. (I like spelling out the numbers once in a while because they look so ridiculously large.)

Figures don't lie. The bare truth is that while the government was collecting enormous amounts of tax dollars, politicians were spending it like drunken sailors on shore leave.

Can we all agree that the president can't spend a dime? Can we all agree that Congress makes the appropriations?

Deficits or surpluses are created by Congress, not the president. To be sure, the president can veto and can urge policy. I think Reagan probably asked for too much defense money. He probably should have vetoed some spending bills. He probably should have cut more programs. He bears some of the blame for the deficits during his years. But most of the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of Congress. In the end, Congress holds the purse strings.

Now, remember all those years of deficit spending since 1961? Forty years of budgets, 36 years of deficit spending.

The deficit in 1994, when Republicans gained control of Congress was $203 billion. In other years:

1995 deficit $164 billion

1996 deficit $108 billion

1997 deficit $22 billion

1998 surplus $69 billion

1999 surplus $124 billion

2000 surplus $236 billion

Of course, tax revenue doubled during the 1990s just as it did during the 1980s.

In 1990, the government took in $1 trillion. In 2000, the government collected $2 trillion.

The difference is that in the latter half of the 1990s, the Republican-led Congress didn't spend it all and more.

Between 1961 and 1994, Democrats had a majority in the House of Representatives. Only one of those years - 1969 - was devoid of deficit spending.

Republicans have been in control since 1994. Three of seven years have been in the black. (Really four of eight if you count 2001.)

Seems a little disingenuous of the Democrats to be warning us about deficit spending, doesn't it? [[In-content Ad]]