Posted on 12/02/2003 9:54:00 AM PST by Texas Federalist
Last week was a particularly good one for the Bush presidency. Just leave it to me to say other than the tax cuts and the war on terror, there is no real compelling reason to re-elect George Bush. We just might be better off with the stalemate that comes from a president from one party, and a Congress under the control of the other. It might at least slow down the growth of government.
Granted, right now fighting the war on terror is clearly the most important job this president has, but it's not the only job he has. The American dream has both foreign and domestic enemies. You can't completely ignore the growing monster of big government while devoting your maximum efforts to fighting Islamic terrorism.
We have a species of parasites in America – some call them Democrats, who think that America's greatness comes from government. America's true greatness was brought about by the dynamic of a free people interacting privately with one another while adhering to a system of laws crafted to preserve and protect basic individual rights. These laws protect the right of the individual to act in his own best interests so long as he respects the rights of others to do the same. Big government is a threat to those rights, and thus far George Bush has done absolutely nothing to fight the growth of government.
As things stand now, George Bush holds the record for three of the top five years in terms of increases in government spending. The only reason Bush holds the record for only three of those years is because the figures for the fourth year of his presidency aren't in yet. What do you want to bet that when those numbers do come in Bush will hold the record for four out of the top five years? All he has to do is beat the spending increases for World War II. For this Congress, that should be a snap.
Who would have believed that by this point in his presidency Bush would not have proposed eliminating one single government spending program? Not only that, but he hasn't so much as vetoed one single spending bill. The recent energy bill failed in Congress partly because some Republicans were repulsed by the pork that had been inserted by their colleagues. They knew a veto wasn't in the offing, so they acted on their own.
You can't blame these spending increases on the war on terror. Yes, military spending is up, but it is still nowhere the level of the 1980s Discretionary spending is increasing faster, and this is where Bush has failed to show leadership.
Terrorists can destroy infrastructure and take innocent lives. Social Security and Medicare could destroy an economy. In Atlanta, we have just gone through a 24-year reign by three mayors who completely ignored a crumbling sewer system. The bill for fixing that system is now due and past avoidance of reality is going to cost some big bucks. Atlanta sewer and water fees are on their way up by nearly 150 percent over the next few years, and this is on top of a recent 50 percent increase in property taxes. Businesses and residents are making plans to move to cheaper climes. This is the price of ignoring a problem you know is there. Medicare and Social Security are headed towards bankruptcy. With every single day that passes we have more people receiving those benefits and fewer people working and paying taxes to fund those benefits.
By the year 2020, those two budget items alone will account for 80 percent of all federal spending. That's about 16 years from now ... less time than our problems in Atlanta were ignored. When taxes triple to fund these two entitlement programs, where do our citizens and businesses have to go to escape? The threat here is as real as the threat of terrorism, and it's time for Bush to apply some of the same leadership qualities he's shown in the war on terror in a war against runaway entitlements.
This hideously expensive and unneeded prescription-drug benefit program would never have happened if one party had been in control of the White House while another controls the Congress. When your party is running the show, there's a special level of responsibility required to make sure that fiscal discipline is maintained. There has been no spending discipline under Bush, and someone will have to pay that bill.
It sounds like that's not adjusted for inflation and population, so that's totally meaningless. I seriously doubt he has anywhere near three of the top five as a percentage of GDP. The Lincoln administration I would think has the record.
Neal is shortsighted, yet again. With two, three, or even four justices ready to retire within the next 5 years, it is VITALLY important who gets to pick them.
Now we have a terrorist threat that can only be ignored at the expense of our economy and security. We are still saddled with the entitlement program expenses passed during the previous administration. As a conservative I am dismayed at the spending in this administration, however I don't believe the entire blame can be laid at the feet of G.W.
Sounds like a percentage calculation to me. If you think not, maybe you can cite some stats.
I'd add the PBA ban to that list.
Bush has yet to veto so much as a single discretionary spending bill. He seems to be rubber stamping every peice of pork that rolls across his desk.
This is NOT going to win him any conservative votes and the liberals won't convert. He keeps this crap up, and he'll be lucky if he can hang on to the White House, much less get greater majorities in BOTH Houses of Congress.
I've read elsewhere that the Bush's administration has sucessfully increased federal spending by 21% in three years. I think that exceeds any logical adjustment for inflation. As far as population adjustment, you're probably right - since our porous borders have allowed illegaliens to drain resources by billions.
IMHO, that is going to backfire on them in the coming election. I predict that the GOP will pick up between three and five seats in the Senate precisely because of the Rats' obstructionist tactics.
You are forgetting that there a Dem sheep out there that see that "obstructionism" as a good thing. I saw it first hand at the Texas capitol when the Chicken D's blew town. If anything, there will be some minor seat shuffling, but no real change.
Certainly not enough to get the bench cleared and real justices voted in.
I'm a pessimist where government is concerned because I'm proven right more often than not and all suprises are good ones.
It'll be reworded but you're right, it will be yet another lie
Hmmmmm...someone hasn't done thier homework...
Bush Ends Funding For Gun Buyback
Bush's Budget Eliminated the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Program
I've read elsewhere that the Bush's administration has sucessfully increased federal spending by 21% in three years. I think that exceeds any logical adjustment for inflation. As far as population adjustment, you're probably right - since our porous borders have allowed illegaliens to drain resources by billions.
I'm not saying the increases in spending were based on inflation or current population increases. He's comparing Bush to past administrations. I'm saying he's comparing a $200 billion or whatever increase in year over year spending under Bush to maybe something like a $10 billion spending increase under Roosevelt. This is an apples and oranges comparison because $10 billion 70 years ago was equivalent to 30 or 40 times that in today's dollars, plus the fact the population is far larger today than it was then.
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.