Squelching the squeals [President's Budget]

But Mr. Clinton achieved big-budget savings by slashing defense spending,

And Science and Technology spending!

I'm seriously thinking about putting my vote where my heart is...and not voting Republican anymore. How in the world can Bush push through some of the largest domestic spending increases I've seen in my lifetime and be called a conservative is beyond me. Increasing the military and intelligence budgets, yes. But domestic spending????? Arrggghhh! If this is the new face of the Republican party (including Congress that passed his increases), then I don't want to be a part of it. Especially since my generation will be footing the bill long after the Boomers have kicked the bucket.

Sorry for my rant...but I'm cranky about this today.

Excellent artlcle. Thanks for posting it.

This has triggered criticism from his staunchest conservative supporters, who accuse him of being a "big government Republican" unwilling to spend any of his political capital to fight wasteful, pork-barrel spending.

Color me "staunchest."

Will Mr. Bush's other domestic spending increases alienate conservative voters in November?

Surely Dubya takes great comfort in knowing there's nowhere else for us to go. His only worry is that we'll stay home. Some staunch conservative voters will decide the difference between him and his opponent is so small as to make getting to the poll, standing in line, etc. not worth the effort. But, luckily for Dubya, most of us have this old-fashioned idea that it's our "civic duty" to vote. Thus, it's all too easy for him and the rest of his "conservative" colleagues to take us staunch-types for granted.

Once enough of us depart from this existence, so will what's left of conservatism. It's only a matter of time.

{ping}

> But Mr. Clinton achieved big-budget savings by slashing defense spending,

And Science and Technology spending!

Good point. Clinton's cuts weren't all bad.

"Thus far, the president has had a lot of specific proposals of where to increase spending, but he has been vague on where to cut spending," says budget analyst Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation. "He has specified increases for education, job training, Medicare, homeland security and corporate welfare, but we've only heard vague statements about fiscal responsibility on the spending-cut side."

Don't worry, Brian. The revenue will be made up from the soon-to-be-legal aliens paying taxes on their $5.15/hour jobs.

You see, Bush has it all figured out?!

***Reluctantly, an ex-Republican base voter***

Didn't you read the whole article? The tax cuts he put through prevented additional spending plus his new budget proposal holds the line on spending to an increase of 1 percent. If you honestly think we would be better off with Dean, Kerry, Edwards or Clark in the White House then, by all means, withhold your vote in November.

All who read this today, send a letter to the President to VETO this bill. I have sent mine.

In the end, though, Mr. Bush will nuke this spending controversy when his 2005 budget comes out on Feb. 2, because it will propose holding total nondefense, non-homeland security discretionary spending increases to less than 1 percent

Only works if Bush vetoes anything bigger -- can you say compromise, you know, go along to get along?

But, luckily for Dubya, most of us have this old-fashioned idea that it's our "civic duty" to vote.

I'll do my "civic duty" for Bush when he does his for us.

Didn't you read the whole article? The tax cuts he put through prevented additional spending plus his new budget proposal holds the line on spending to an increase of 1 percent. If you honestly think we would be better off with Dean, Kerry, Edwards or Clark in the White House then, by all means, withhold your vote in November.

I did read the whole article. I don't think we'd be better with the Demonrats...however, I'm truly pissed about the increase in domestic spending....the Medicare bill in particular and to a lesser extent the Education bill. I would have expected CUTS in spending to go along with the tax cuts.

Normally, DemonRats raise taxes AND spending. Republicans cut taxes AND spending.

Whatever happened to the Line Item Veto?

From the Article: ...(the 2005 budget) will propose holding total nondefense, non-homeland security discretionary spending increases to less than 1 percent -- a surprise move he did not mention in his State of the Union address.

-----
I'll believe that +1% jazz when I see it. Unfortunately, I suspect I won't be believing it.

Libertarian means socially liberal, fiscal conservative.

What is the mirror philosophy called? What is a socially conservative, fiscal liberal? Do we have something new under the sun in Washington?

The problem isn't so much cutting taxes as it is the spending issues. The theory is that cutting taxes will spur growth and actually result in more tax revenues due to the greater economic output. This may work in the short term. However, the increased spending burdens will eventually fall upon we, the people. He is buying his immediate future on our backs.

What is so disturbing about the Bush administration is that rather than acting in a principled fashion (according to Republican [conservative] principles of limited government)is that he has eschewed those principles in a quest to buy (yes, buy) votes from the seniors and those 'on the fence' in order to gain some kind of majority (see election 2000 debacle). Prescription drug coverage, higher educational spending, over a billion to promote marriage(!), campaign finaice, immigration disaster...all of these done while regarding those more conservative with the thought of "Yeah, but who else are you going to vote for?" - taking his base support for granted.

Some suggestions - take the billion + dollars to promote marriage and move the marine base at 29 Palms closer to Yuma, AZ & have it conduct operations along the border. Cancel the educational spending, as it is the states' job.

For those voters who are truly appalled by this, the endgame is simple - the congress is the default place to exercise your individual power. Let me explain. Vote for Bush & maybe he will be reelected, or vote for someone else more aligned with your principles. If Bush loses, the Congress will likely (at this point) be Republican, and be in the same position it was in in the 90's with Groper-in-Chief, that of opposing Dem policies. Unfortunately, it is in opposing Dem policies that Reps are better, as Reps act more principled when lacking the executive branch. They have fallen into the Dem theory of buying votes by pandering. It is sad, for it indicates a lack of faith in the appeal and viability of their own espoused principles.

So how do we exercise influence on congress? Vote locally. Become more involved. Watch the voting record on spending measures. Act to inform (via freerepublic, email, etc.) others of the bad acts. Donate $ acordingly. Support candidates that actually do not want to spend your tax dollars. Most congressional members know 90+% of them are reelected and their districts are heavily gerrymandered, so we need options (alternate candidates) locally. Not an easy path, to be sure, but the only one that has any hope of saving us and our futures. It is time to stop these politicians from spending our $. I fear for the consequences of failure to do so.