Okay, a brief summary of "tax options" leaked by Clinton & Co:
     ( hold on to your hats, pals )

     Reprinted without permission from Associated Press

     " In the face of such daunting figures, the budget office's options
       show that deficit-reduction pain would have to be borne by more
       than just the rich:

       X   Boosting the top income-tax rate for individuals from its
           current 31 percent to 33 percent would raise $24 Billion
           over the next four years.  Clnton is expected to try to
           raise the top rate, paid by the most affluent Americans,
           to 36 percent

       X   Raising the top rate on corporations from 34 percent to 35
           percent would garner $11.3 Billion for the government over
           four years.  Clinton is considering a 36 percent upper rate.

       X   Increasing the alternative minimum tax paid by the wealthy
           from 24 perent to 28 percent would raise $17.1 Billion over
           four years.

       X   Reduce the current $1 Million cap on mortgages on which
           taxpayers can deduct interest to $300,000:  $9 Billion [raised]

       X   Tax employer-paid health insurance premiums exceeding $400
           per month for families and $165 monthly for individuals:
           $79 Billion [raised]

       X   Higher taxes on alcohol and tobacco products.  Doubling the
           24 cent-per-pack cigarette tax would raise $14.3 Billion.
           The government could raise $17.9 Billion by increasing the
           tax on a six-pack of beer from 33 cents to 81 cents, the tax
           on a bottle of wine from 21 cents to 70 cents, and the tax on
           a bottle of hard liquor from $2.14 to $2.54.

       X   Energy taxes.  A 5 percent tax on energy would raise $71.4
           Billion.

       X   Scale back nuclear weapons research and halt testing:
           $600 Million

       X   Reduce from 14 to 10 the number of aircraft carrier battle
           groups: $8.4 Billion

       X   Reduce military aid and economic foreign aid: $1.2 Billion

       X   Cancel the space station and superconducting super collider:
           $9.7 Billion

       X   Reduce anti-drug law enforcement efforts: $6.8 Billion

       X   Reduce deficiency payments to farmers: $7.1 Billion

       X   Reduce federal interest subsidies for Stafford loans to
           college students: $7.4 Billion

       X   Increase the montly premium Medicare recepients pay for
           doctors' services by 5 percent: $20.1 Billion            "

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Okay.  Add 'em all up.  I make it around $350 Billion over four years,
      either in increased revenues or decreased spending.  At current
      deficit levels,  our total deficit over 4 years will be $300 Billion
      * 4 years = $1.2 Trillion.

      Okay.  So enacting ALL of these options would cut the deficit by
      25%.  Let's give the benefit of the doubt.  Make it FIFTY percent.

      Now.  Look over each item.

          Example:  Shutting down carrier groups.  More people laid off
          and less Federal revenues.

          Energy taxes - Carter proposed a similar idea in the late 70s.
          Studies suggest that economic growth would be slowed, due to
          higher energy costs by 1/2 to 1% of GDP.  Result:  Less Federal
          revenues through taxes.

          Reduce anti-drug law enforcement.  Result:  More layoffs, less
          Federal revenue.

     And I'm SURE that these estimated "tax enhancement measures" assume
     a static economy that won't react.  Like people buying WAY less
     gasoline.  Or selling that $500K house to move to Omaha, Neb.

Let me first start off by saying that I had a problem with several of those
"revenue increasers"....

     -------------------------------------------------------------------------

         Okay.  Add 'em all up.  I make it around $350 Billion over four years,
         either in increased revenues or decreased spending.  At current
         deficit levels,  our total deficit over 4 years will be $300 Billion
         * 4 years = $1.2 Trillion.

I take it that you assume that we will have 0 growth in the economy?

         Okay.  So enacting ALL of these options would cut the deficit by
         25%.  Let's give the benefit of the doubt.  Make it FIFTY percent.

         Now.  Look over each item.

             Example:  Shutting down carrier groups.  More people laid off
             and less Federal revenues.

We really can't make assumptions like this unless we know how they
arrived at these numbers.  I'll play along for fun.  We may have less
revenue but we'll have less people on the government payroll, building
up pension, and generating health care costs.  Most of those qualified
people will find another job, because they have been taught good
leadership skills and have ambition.  I would rather see them cut
more from expensive weapon systems than cut personnel (yes, I realize
that might cost civilian jobs, but I think there is a lot more waste
in these programs).

             Energy taxes - Carter proposed a similar idea in the late 70s.
             Studies suggest that economic growth would be slowed, due to
             higher energy costs by 1/2 to 1% of GDP.  Result:  Less Federal
             revenues through taxes.

Less health care costs (one of the fastest rising costs today) for
people getting sick from breathing polluted air (man, I sound like a
good bleeding-heart on that one).

             Reduce anti-drug law enforcement.  Result:  More layoffs, less
             Federal revenue.

Less tax dollars spent to house non-violent criminals.  Drug
enforcement officers put to work solving murders and robberies, saving
us even more tax dollars.

        And I'm SURE that these estimated "tax enhancement measures" assume
        a static economy that won't react.  Like people buying WAY less
        gasoline.  Or selling that $500K house to move to Omaha, Neb.

Oh no, people buying less gasoline!  That might take profits away from
the oil companies and give them to people developing alternative fuel
sources or electric cars.  I think we could raise the tax on gas a lot
before we actually got a decrease in revenues (not that I'm ferit, I'm
agin it).  What's that matter with selling your $500k house and moving
to Nebraska?  I'm personally sick of subsidizing all you people with
houses and kids anyway :-)  All my loopholes have been yanked and my
social security taxes have been raised.

        I'm highly interested to hear what President Clinton has to say
        on Febuarary 17, 1993.

Well, I hope you'll look at the issue from both sides.
--

Transitions are painful.  But we have to cut spending, we have to raise more
revenue, and we have to convert the war-based economy to a peacetime economy.
Of course we should keep whatever defense programs we need, which will probably
be substantial for a long time.  But they are getting less, and some of them,
like SDI, were never needed in the first place.  An unneeded defense program is
just as economically harmful as any other type of inefficiency.

A question to the original poster, or to anyone else.  The figures that you
listed which were "over four years" - are those total savings over four years, or
annual amounts that we can attain by the end of a four-year transitional period.
I'm not claiming tha they are - I really don't know the answer and I'd like to.