It may be good politics, but the plan John McCain released last week doesn't work from a budget perspective unless:

• He's also proposing a steady series of record-high nominal deficits

• He's somehow figured out how to make spending cuts acceptable when up to now Congress, whether it has been under Republican or Democratic control, has refused to reduce to the levels he's suggesting

• He's figured out a way to prevent natural disasters from occurring

• He can guarantee that no military or foreign policy issues will occur while he's president

The most glaring problem with the McCain plan is also the simplest to see: he is proposing more than $3 trillion in tax reductions (some estimates put it at $5 trillion or higher) with nothing close to offsetting spending cuts.

(In their separate posts here at Capital Gains and Games, Pete discusses the McCain tax plan and Andrew deals with the economics, so I'll leave it to them to explain in more detail what is being proposed in those areas.)

The McCain plan relies on two types of spending reductions, neither of which come close to offsetting the tax cuts.

First, the plan says it will eliminate earmarks. But eliminating earmarks doesn't reduce spending by even a penny let alone billions of dollars; it just changes who makes the decision about how the funds will be spent from Congress to the executive branch.

Second, the plan says McCain will scrub the rest of the government for wasteful subsidies and other inefficiencies. But even the Republican congressional majorities from 2001 to 2006 that were sending bills to a Republican president who said he wanted to cut spending refused or failed to cut the same programs the McCain plan says it will eliminate. It's a better-than-safe bet these programs will continue to have the political support they need to withstand a new attack.

The biggest problem with the McCain plan is that it continues to look to a part of the federal budget that simply isn't large enough to pay for the tax cuts he is proposing.

Spending on nondefense domestic appropriations is about $500 billion. That means that a $200 billion annual reduction in revenues in each of the early years of the plan (I'm being conservative so we don't have to argue about the numbers) would require a 40 percent reduction in this spending. Unless McCain is talking about eliminating rather than just streamlining whole areas of federal activities, this can't happen.

It's especially not possible because much of the spending in this category is for "nuts and bolts" programs that keep the federal government functioning (IRS, for example) or provide public protection and safety (like the Centers for Disease Control and Food and Drug Administration). Because these programs are likely to increase in coming years, the magnitude of the required reduction in what's left to pay for the revenue loss would be even greater and even less politically acceptable.

The McCain plan does propose that the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare for higher income individuals be increased. But that will be matched by the projected overall cost in this program as Boomers retire and demand more and more expensive services.

The plan also suggests that some entitlements other than Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid would come under scrutiny. But because of the support farm states have in the Senate (which McCain should obviously know given how long he has been a senator), one of the largest programs in this category, agricultural price supports, has proven to be one of the most resilient to any reductions. A second large program, federally guaranteed student loans, is currently going through some major changes and may not provide any savings at all. Much of what's left in this category, like federal retirement, is largely untouchable and won't provide much in savings anyway.

The McCain plan really isn't a budget plan anyway. There's no indication that he anticipates the government having to do anything during his administration beyond what it is currently doing...and we already know that even under the best of circumstances that's wrong.

For example, military spending will almost certainly have to rise as the Pentagon pays more to retain and recruit for active duty personnel and the National Guard and reserves. Military spending will also rise as the Pentagon increases the pace of replacing equipment and deals with the problems laid bare by the scandals at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Spending on veterans' healthcare will also increase as Iraq/Afghanistan era troops leave the military.

All of this -- cut taxes, increase military spending, and reduce domestic spending -- should sound remarkably familiar: It's virtually the same budget plan Ronald Reagan ran on in 1980. Those of us who are old enough will remember that Reagan got the first two but not the third, and before the end of his first term even stopped pretending that domestic spending reductions could offset the large nominal deficits and tremendous increase in federal debt he had created. The McCain budget plan would come on top of more than $4.6 trillion in federal debt that has been incurred since Reagan took office.

The plan is far too easy to dismiss as a bad idea poorly executed. My guess is that it won't be long before the McCain campaign stops talking about "the plan" and just focus on the individual pieces as his speaks with particular constituencies.

That makes this a budget plan that's not just dead on arrival on Capitol Hill; it's a plan that's dead long before typesetting.