The reduced top rate in '86 was part of a no-spending bargain. It was the quid for the quo of a broadened base.
The only allowable justification for the rate increases, given the bargain, was for deficit reduction. So there is less cause to cheer than might be apparent.
As for Bradley's role in '86, he had lots of political cover -- the Reagan Treasury dept was spearheading tax reform. Plus tax legislation originates in Ways and Means, so Bradley's role was less than is reflected by his advocacy of the *principles* of reform before 1986 (along with Gephardt).
So the 1986 bill is not much reason to get excited about BB. There isn't much of any reason, IMO. I'd probably vote for him.
The 'privatization' attack on his health plan is less important in my view than the problem of inadequate subsidies for low- income persons to buy insurance. In a sense Gore vs. Bradley is apples and oranges; there are different winners and losers in their respective proposals.
The best thing about Bradley is the impression of fiscal flexibility -- the openness to consider large measures that cost lots of money.
Unfortunately, we've been here before. There was a candidate with these pretensions in 1992. His name was Bill Clinton. Some of this is primary season atmospherics.
mbs