The New York Times has an article today by John Broder that will give anyone and everyone who watches the federal budget debate something to worry about.

So, in no particlar order...

Although it doesn't quote him, the article indicates that McCain economic advisor and former Congressonal Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin says, ..."if the war and the personal and corporate tax cuts that Mr. McCain advocated added to the federal deficit and debt, so be it."

This is an outright admission that the candidate still in the race who considers himself to be the most fiscally conservative has little interest in government borrowing and sees no reason to limit his plans or deal with the budget hand he will be dealt if he gets elected.

The article also indicates that McCain "...plans to pay for tax cuts and modernizing the military by eliminating earmarks and wasteful spending from the federal budget."

Even if every earmark were eliminated, something that no one expects, that would only save pennies compared to the amount that the tax cuts and military upgrades would cost. And please tell me that we're not going back to the old line that the budget can be balanced by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.

At the very least, someone has to ask McCain and Doug what spending they consider wasteful.

The article indicates that while Barack Obama says that he will pay for much of what he wants to do with the peace dividend that will come from stopping activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, it says that Austan Goolsbee, his economic advisor, thought "...that any such dividend would emerge slowly."

An unnamed Hillary Clinton advisor is quoted as saying that "...she proposed to pay for all of her domestic programs, including universal health insurance, without taking money from the Pentagon that would be needed to redeploy troops now in Iraq and to pay for their health care costs."

That sounds like she has a Nixon-like secret plan for dealing with the budget, but not the deficit.

Finally, the article says "...the war in Iraq is largely being paid for off the books, with emergency and supplemental spending rather than from the Pentagon’s operating budget."

Yes, emergency supplemental appropriations have been used to provide the funds for the war, but they are not "off the books." They are counted and are included in the government's deficit calculations like all regularly appropriated dollars.