Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal jumped on John McCain's economic policy proposals for either causing "the federal deficit to explode" or requiring "unprecedented spending cuts equal to one-third of federal spending on domestic programs." This was based upon estimates which I would vouch for from the Urban/Brookings Tax Policy Center. I haven't found similar analyses of Barack Obama's or Hillary Clinton's economic policy proposals, but I would expect comparable deficit explosions.

In the middle of the most wide-open and close presidential campaign since 1924, of course all of the candidates are going to over promise and under "pay for" their proposals. Holding candidates to their campaign pledges is a cottage industry, and most new presidents start out trying to fulfill those pledges, but that doesn't mean they will succeed. Even Ronald Reagan's tax cuts were scaled back and followed a year later with significant "revenue enhancement." Even a solidly Democratic Congress will have trouble busting the budget because it's already busted, and voters are watching because they are stretched by their own fiscal problems.

Whoever is sworn in next January 20th will face such a huge river of federal red ink that it will be very difficult to launch any big new initiatives. No one is going to repeal the Bush tax cuts for most Americans, just maybe those for the rich. Even if the war was stopped tomorrow, it would actually be more costly in the first year or two to bring troops and equipment home, and we won't see much of a peace dividend after that. President Bush has dug quite a deep fiscal hole, and we won't fill it in anytime soon.

The real test for the presidential candidates is not whether they pay for their proposals; it will be whether they fight the difficult and politically challenging day in and day out struggle to balance the budget. I would argue that we can't tell how well they will conduct that fight until a year or two after one of them takes office.