Those of you who think a solution to the deficit is to elect Kerry better think again:

Even with ... generous accounting, the Kerry spending promises add up to an extraordinary amount of money. Our best estimate is that Kerry's proposals will add up to between $2 trillion and $2.1 trillion over the next ten years. Since the revenue from his tax proposals relative to the current baseline is actually negative, this implies that the Kerry proposal would increase the deficit by perhaps as much as $2.5 trillion over the next ten years.

I'm not playing up the "whoa, tax and spend city!" angle because noting that about a Democrat is like noting Jessica Simpson isn't all that bright. What I find much more striking, as does the author, is the complete lack of "where are the numbers?" questions the media have historically badgered all candidates about.

Of even more interest is the same author's analysis of what Kerry's corporate "tax incentives" really mean:

If a multinational makes money abroad, [under Kerry's plan] it must pay U.S. taxes immediately. This will make the negative impact of high U.S. taxes impossible to avoid and force U.S. firms to significantly increase prices. That should lead to sharp reductions in market share and employment both at home and abroad, and a likely wave of foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies.

No, I don't expect this to change any minds. I doubt if most of you will even believe it. But I do hope you'll at least think twice the next time you put the deficit front and center of your "anyone but Bush" reasonings.

"Anybody but"'s being rational. Ah well, hope does spring eternal I guess...