Posted on 12/26/2003 1:19:10 PM PST by jimkress
"Nobody in my district is screaming for tax cuts, they are screaming for a prescription drug benefit." Maxine Waters? Nope, try Republican Congressman Steven LaTourette of Ohio. "I'm concerned. This budget is essentially $11 billion under the president's number." Barney Frank? Wrong again-it comes from New York Republican Sherwood Boehlert. "I don't like what I see so far." Nancy Pelosi? Sorry, it's House Government Reform Chairman Tom Davis -- Republican, Virginia.
The target of their sniping is Rep. Jim Nussle of Iowa, chairman of the House Budget Committee. It turns out that in writing the FY2004 House Budget Resolution, Nussle called for a paltry 1 percent cut in nondefense discretionary and mandatory spending.
Almost 10 years after the GOP swept into Congress, it is evident that the self-proclaimed party of limited government has become the party of unlimited spending. The GOP Congress has delivered three of the top five largest spending sprees in American history -- the other two occurred during World War II.
While the Senate can be counted on to be a perpetual spending machine regardless of the party in power, the few GOP spending hawks in the House could use some assistance from the White House. But the leadership on spending from President Bush has been virtually nonexistent.
In his most recent budget message, the president says, "I will also insist on spending discipline in Washington D.C., so we can meet our priorities." Interesting, because in last year's budget message the president called for "restraint in government spending." And what did President Bush say in his first budget message to the American people? "Government spending has risen too quickly."
Unfortunately, the president's rhetoric has not been matched by his deeds. Under Bush's new budget, total spending will have risen 19.6 percent since he entered into office. However, national defense is not responsible for all of that increase. Non-defense spending will have jumped 18.1 percent.
Given that Congress technically controls the purse strings, it deserves much of the blame. However, President Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill during his three years in office. Instead, he has agreed to sign every piece of legislation crossing his desk, including a bloated farm bill and the recent pork-ridden FY2003 omnibus bill. To make a comparison, President Reagan had already vetoed 22 spending bills at the same point in his administration.
Fortunately for timid Republicans help has arrived from the Congressional Budget Office. The nonpartisan CBO recently released its annual "Budget Options" publication, which offers legislators billions of dollars' worth of sensible spending reduction ideas. More importantly for Republicans, traditional Democratic arguments that the spending cut ideas are "draconian" or "extreme" would be weakened because of the CBO's neutral reputation.
If Congress were to heed the suggestions of the CBO, over $50 billion would be freed-up in fiscal year 2004 alone. And, projected over the course of the next 10 years, the sum would amount to almost $1.5 trillion dollars. Thus, by adhering to the simple spending ideas offered by the CBO, enough money would be available to prosecute the war, enact the president's tax cuts, and still balance the budget in the near-term.
Fact is, the times we live in require that the federal government tighten its belt. The economy is crying out for tax reduction and regulatory rollbacks. The constant threat of terrorism requires that scarce resources be allocated in a way to enhance America's security. Unless drastically reformed soon, programs like Social Security and Medicare will wreak economic havoc when the baby boomers start to retire. Adding a prescription drug program to a financially troubled Medicare program -- as both the administration and congressional Republicans have proposed -- is not a step in the right direction.
President Bush has shown extreme courage in international affairs when confronted with hostility, from friend and foe alike. There is no doubt that he can demonstrate similar courage on the spending front when challenged by unfriendly Democrats and fellow Republicans that have gone wobbly. Republicans still have time to become the party of limited government -- but not much.
Current Political spectrum (far left to far right):
C*-->F*-->S((E)*-->D*-->LL*-->R*-->**CENTER**-->CL-->CP*-->CoL-->Re*
C = Communists
F = Fascists
S(E)= Socialists (Environmentalists)
D = USA Democratic Party (USA)
LL = Liberal Libertarians (liberals who want drugs legalized
R = USA Republican Party
**CENTER** - Center of the political spectrum
CL = Centrist Libertarians (Republicans who want to end the war on drugs)
CP = Constitution Party
CoL = Conservative Libertarians (pure Constitutionalists)
Re = Reactionaries
Based up the results from 2000 my guess your hope is......
Slim and None for the USCP...... but good luck.
|
|
|||
 |
Phillips | 0 Electoral Votes |
Howard Phillips Constitution, Independent American, American Independent, Independent, American Constitution, Concerned Citizens, United States Taxpayers, "Write-In", "By Petition" Popular Vote: 98,016 (0.09%) On the ballot in 47 (6 of which are write-ins) jurisdictions totaling 501 Electoral votes. |
|
|
|||
There's a big difference these days. With the exception of Lieberman and maybe Gephardt, the Democratic Presidential candidates are willing to let the nation's throat be cut by terrorism, whether out of political opportunism or hatred of American greatness. One must conclude that that is the majority attitude of the Democratic Party.
Say what you want about the GOP these days -- and I have my disagreements with them, as well -- but, led by George Bush, it believes in American greatness and in defending this nation.
It's a damned shame that only one of the major American political parties actually believes in America any more, but until the Dems return to the tradition of FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ (as much as I likely would have disagreed with them, were I alive back then) or are replaced as a major party, that's the way it is.
Sure is to people with a deficient understanding of cost of doing business.
The Conservative Dogma gains are very impressive under the watch of Dubya', and at the same time the war on terrorism without depending on a choice of a selected few targets with cruise missiles...and still maintaining a positive light on the market.
Maryland attorney Michael Peroutka is currently the [Constitution P]arty's designated "provisional" Presidential candidate for 2004. Party founder and three-time Presidential nominee Howard Phillips has already endorsed Peroutka for the nomination. Other CP state chairs have also expressed support for his likely candidacy. What all this means is that Peroutka will be the CP's Presidential nominee in 2004 -- unless the party finds a "big name" person willing to run under the party's banner....He opposed the US action in Iraq on constitutional grounds: "It's not that Congress doesn't have the authority to declare war. It's just that it hasn't done so." However, he emphasizes that he strongly supported the US troops in Iraq while opposing "the unconstitutional procedures under which they were committed to fight."
I'm unclear on this. Does this mean that Peroutka is against U.S. military action in Iraq or that he thinks the action was correct, but proper procedures to authorize it were not done? In short, if there had been a resolution declaring war before Congress, would he have supported it?
The government has expanded at a pace greater than anytime since LBJ. That can only be seen as a 'gain' in the magical kingdom of Bushbotland.
Not true, for it can be seen by aggressive, hardworking individuals, like myself who have taken a portion of their hard earned efforts and invested them into the market and with the returns have spent a portion of the fruitful investment to make my life more pleasing (gasp, what a selfish thought) and in return I have promoted my own financial gains along with others, through paying for their services, to make my life more comfortable, because of my investing and spending my hard earned money with others to who help promote a more fulfilling life style for myself.
Magic wasn't an inputting factor, hard work and reaping of that hard work was.
Closed minds will gain no insight.
Perhaps a "Deeply Saddened" clip will help you understand the crumbling of the Democratic party AND their agenda.
Run a search on "Tom Daschle" and you will understand the "dogma" that I refer to.(if you have the ambition to do so)
Impressive terminology when referencing the Presidency.
People who say this are either extremely ignorant or just flat out not being honest.
There is a huge difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.