It's a sad state of affairs that we as voters must wade through so much posturing and pandering by the presidential candidates. Particularly hard is when we find out after they are elected that their words were vaporous and meaningless. What's a voter to do? A study released January 29th of this year by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation helps tax payers cut through the facade and see the real truth, expressed in hard numbers. Keep in mind that the United States has trillions of dollars ($9,200,874,834,693.13) in debt, is spending close to $1 trillion a year on Iraq and Afghanistan, and is facing the housing market implosion. Now, with all this economic unrest, which candidates actually want to do something about it and save some dough?

The four respective frontrunners in the two parties (John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama), proposed overall fiscal policy agendas whose net effect would raise annual federal outlays between $6.9 billion and $287.0 billion.

The top-tier GOP candidates often portrayed as "conservative" (Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee) actually called for significantly larger spending hikes ($19.5 billion and $54.2 billion, respectively), than the so-called "moderate conservative" (John McCain, $6.9 billion).

Among Democrats, Barack Obama, often described as ideologically more "moderate" than Hillary Clinton, actually has the larger agenda of the two ($287.0 billion vs. $218.2 billion).

Defense-related spending items received the highest proposed spending increases among Republican candidates. Huckabee and Romney, for example, offered $67.2 billion and $40.6 billion, respectively. Among Democrats, Clinton's biggest boost goes toward health care ($113.6 billion) and Obama's for economy, transportation, and infrastructure ($105.0 billion).

Two of the eight candidates proposed sufficient spending cuts that more than offset their new spending plans: Rudy Giuliani (-$1.4 billion) and Ron Paul (-$150.1 billion).

Taking into account that Rudy Giuliani has dropped out, this makes Ron Paul the only candidate that actually wants to save the country some money, and he wants to do it on a large scale. Why are we pouring in so much money in taxes, to support a government that doesn't represent us? Why would you support a candidate that wants that trend to continue? Where is this money going to come from? Would you rather not pay income taxes? I know I would. What if you got to keep an extra third of your income? Don't you think that's a bigger chunk than a proposed $300 tax rebate Congress is now considering to "stimulate" the economy? I know it is significantly more for me. I would rather spend the money that I earned than some small rebate the government gives me. We don't know the source of that rebate either. The administration is currently engaged in deficit spending, racking up more debt to pass on to future generations. How long until China calls in those debts? It's time to make the government stop spending, and the only way to do that is by electing Ron Paul, the only candidate left that is 100% for real about cutting spending and saving US citizens their hard-earned income. Read his views, compare them with an open mind to the other candidates, and you'll see Dr. Paul is truly about getting our country back on track. Join the REVOLUTION