Most candidates make budget analysis' based on rosey economic forecasts. Kerry will raise taxes for that 200k+ income bracket. That won't cover spending, but that's how he justifies the Federal Gov't picking up the tab.

I'm fairly centrist on this issue. I believe people deserve their day in court, and shouldn't be short changed. Some times the damages do justify huge settlements, and these settlements do account for a relatively small amount of the premiums. OTO, I don't like to see truly frivolous law suits. (Anybody remember the woman who sued for spilling coffee on herself?) Each case is unique, so I don't want to put an arbitrary cap on each - but I don't want to see any one case get out of hand, or see these judicial havens where judges are overly sympathetic with one side.

Any way, My two cents.
Spending is already out of hand. 50% is defense. I don't see either candidate balancing the budget.

The President’s budget proposes spending $390.4 billion on defense related activities in FY 2004. This amounts to 17.5 percent of all spending and 3.5 percent of GDP.

-This level is roughly the same as defense spending was in 1996, which amounted to 17.0 percent of all federal spending and 3.5 percent of GDP.

-Defense spending in 1987, the height of the Reagan build up, was 28.1 percent of all federal spending and 6.1 percent of GDP.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/2004budgetperspective.html

The thing about hiking taxes on people making $200K is that it's going to nail small businesses -- i.e. the people who create jobs --- while trust fund billionaires like the Kerry's can still use their armies of tax attorneys to avoid paying.

The tort reform crisis is largely overblown. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.mencimer.html