In all the talk about returning to the Clinton income-tax tables, I have been confused on one small point: As I remember the Gingrich-Clinton years, the tax raises were followed by spending freezes and caps, and some time later we had balanced budgets, however fragile and temporary. That compromise of the 1990s now seems to be forgotten: If the Clinton tax tables led to a balanced budget, why does no one believe they will this time around? Why is there so much additional talk of the need for novel VAT taxes, health-care surcharge taxes, and caps off income subject to FICA payroll taxes? In other words, why is there no talk about the second half of the equation, applying an immediate, across-the-board spending freeze? What makes the return to the Clinton tax code (if it happens and if it affects everyone equally) really unfortunate is that we are going to be taxing in an L-shaped “recovery” and yet will make little, if any, progress in balancing the books, given that borrowing is still seen as needed “stimulus” and won’t be reined in. We can see the downward spiral; California and Greece are the models. Spending keeps rising, taxes creep up in response, deficits rise, shrill warnings about the need to cut defense, policing, and other necessary government services begin to be heard, and more taxation is passed to catch up with spending – until the next crisis.