[FirstPrinciple]

President Bush has proposed a cap on increased spending for this fiscal year at 4%

Oh wow! So, there will be more spending coming. Since the economy is growing at 8% per quarter, the President will have tons more to spend next year over and above the level of inflation. And that is a conservative thing to do? How about reducing discretionary spending. You guys love to talk about incremental change. How about incremental decrease? Maybe growth in spending by 0%, which means no extra spending and no cuts from previous year. That should be incremental, don't you think?

The problem exactly lies in the President's budget. He outlines billions in discretionary spending. If you understand so much about politics, you must understand that as Republicans in Congress it is hard to vote against the President's agenda. If the President doesn't campaign for you or if he directs the party to shut off election money, then your career in Congress is over. If Clinton proposed expanding Medicare, you bet it would have never passed in Congress. It is hard for a tiny Congressman to stand up against the power of the Presidency. Secondly, why should we excuse the President? He is one man, and that is where we should focus for change. It is hard to focus on 535 people than on one. If the President was a conservative he would use his bully-pulpit to not propose huge budgets in the first place. He would use his bully-pulpit to veto measures like CFR and Sarbanes-Oxley. He is asking Congress to play goalie for him so he could have an easy ride through 2004. No George, the buck starts and stops in your desk. You cannot pretend that you have nothing to do with the buck. As Cromwell said, "By God, be gone!"

[PhiKapMom]

This is my last post to you -- since you like to argue go find another Freeper. Since you said that, it is obvious that you don't understand budgets.

Not worth my time to explain.

[kitkat]

***If the President doesn't campaign for you or if he directs the party to shut off election money, then your career in Congress is over.***

You're mistaken. The President can't just shut out a member of Congress without making sure there is a Republic replacement for him who is certain to win in the next election. And nobody can do that. The President needs Republicans in both houses to help pass his bills.

***He is asking Congress to play goalie for him so he could have an easy ride through 2004.***

Give me the name of any president who hasn't wanted his people to help him get re-elected.

[Ophiucus]

Maybe growth in spending by 0%,

Real world to FirstPrinciple!

Sure, zero growth would be great - well, a lot of soldiers would get screwed and tanks would run out of gas and helicopters would run out of maintenance parts but what the hey - is zero growth possible? (outside of string theory emergent possibilities) I mean, add the dream - elimination of the income tax, reduction of government to pre-1910 levels....

BTW - Budgets originate in the House. The President asks for an extremely rough proposal, which means only specific requests for immediate projects (missile defense, the blanks are all filled in by the House committees which more often than not completely ignore the President's requests. The only real pull a President has is the threat of a veto.

It is hard for a tiny Congressman to stand up against the power of the Presidency.

Tell that to Jumpin Jim. The President needs the Congressmen more than they need him and they know it.

Sarbanes-Oxley

What is it with you folks and Sarbanes-Oxley? Do you just like the way it sounds when you're eating marshmallows?