Whoever wins the US election will enter an era of budget surpluses that will make even Charlie McCreevy green with envy.
The last balanced budget was in 1969, the first year of the Nixon administration, and from a deficit peak of $340 billion in 1992, the booming US economy last year bounced the government back into the black by about $700 million. In 2000 that surplus is expected to rise to $81 billion, and in the 10 years to 2010 to a cumulative total of a staggering $2.2 trillion. All being well.
If social security receipts are taken into account there is an additional $2.4 trillion surplus for politicians to conjure with.
Not surprisingly, the bitter debate here on how to carve up that extra cash mirrors that at home, and indeed throughout Europe, where the left has become the unlikely proponent of fiscal caution and targeting, while the right champions the universalism of tax cuts across the board.
The strange inversion of the politics of the 1970s and 1980s is a feature of the post-Clinton Democrats, as with New Labour in Britain. "Tough but caring" social democracy is the "responsible" counterpart in these elections to the dubiously named "compassionate conservatism" of Governor George Bush. Compassionate to whom? more than one commentator has asked.
While Mr Gore proposes a nine-year programme of tax cuts of about $480 billion, targeted at those on incomes under $100,000, Mr Bush would shave $1.3 trillion off all tax bills through measures such as the elimination of inheritance tax. The result would be savings worth $800 billion to those earning above that same ceiling.
Mr Gore selectively targets families and married couples and offers credits to nearly 30 million of the working poor who have little or no tax liability and therefore little capacity to enjoy the effect of rate cuts. He has specified four key areas for some 30 specific tax cuts - retirement savings, education, healthcare, and the environment.
Mr Bush's emphasis, on the other hand, is on tax rate cutting, creating a new low rate of 10 per cent and a new high of 33 per cent.
In his last TV debate he made no bones about the fact his policy would mainly benefit the top earners: "Of course it does. If you pay taxes you are going to get a benefit." The result is that only 5 per cent of his total tax cuts package would benefit people making less than $30,000 a year.