"...the MESSAGE IS GETTING TO THE PRESIDENT. Novak: "Conservatives were especially angered by Bush's declaration in his State of the Union address that discretionary federal spending would rise at an annual rate of 4 percent. After the adverse reaction to that, the White House sent word to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to hold the increase to 1 percent, a figure that will be reflected in the new budget being released this week."
That's good, now we just need to get the Administration to be a little more discerning regarding the so-called non-discretionary spending items. For example, his proposed Amnesty program is filled with huge spending initiatives to be paid to non-citizens, but falls under "non-discretionary." And I've gotta believe that we could achieve Homeland Security without breaking the bank as well. Lord knows that in a $2.3 Trillion budget, there's loads and loads of fat to be trimmed, and we oughtta be making said trimming more of a priority!!
You: "Unless Dubyuh changes his big-spending ways, the damage to the GOP's reputation for fiscal discipline may be irreparable, and the liberals will have won due to a virtual foreit by the right!!"
"The people who worry about this are conservatives ... The Democrats are critical that Bush is not SPENDING ENOUGH! Democrats may use this issue, but only as a way to garner support for higher taxes and demoralize conservatives:"
I've seen more and more of the RAT candidates fer POTUS claiming to be fiscal conservatives (i.e. Dean, Kerry, Clark), and I ain't about to fall fer it. Still, by outspending Clinton and the DemonRAT-controlled Congress of '93-'94, Dubyuh's let down his guard and muddied the electoral waters enuff where I can see some folks being fooled. This election cycle must make clear to the voters that the GOP is the Party of Fiscal Discipline, and it needs to start NOW!!
FReegards...MUD
"I've seen more and more of the RAT candidates fer POTUS claiming to be fiscal conservatives (i.e. Dean, Kerry, Clark), and I ain't about to fall fer it. "
Nor should you:
Study: EVERY Democrat Presidential Candidate's Platform Would Raise, Not Lower, Federal Budget Deficits
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=549&org_name=NTUF "State of Union Speech's Price Tag Lowest in Five Years, Line-by-Line Analysis Finds"
President Bush outlined items whose enactment would increase federal spending by a net of $13.6 billion per year, a fraction of the $51.9 billion in annual spending hikes he proposed in 2003 or the $106.6 billion in 2002. This overall level is the lowest NTUF has recorded among the five most recent State of the Union speeches. Bill Clinton claimed the biggest yearly spending boost, in his 1999 speech ($305 billion)
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=551&org_name=NTUF Deficit 'hawks' on the left are really tax-and-spenders
http://www.ntu.org/main/press_issuebriefs.php?PressID=306&org_name=NTUF "Still, by outspending Clinton and the DemonRAT-controlled Congress of '93-'94, Dubyuh's let down his guard and muddied the electoral waters enuff"
Okay, but discerning conservatives should not fall for this comparison as an apples-to-apples one.
The simple fact is that Clinton's low spending increases occured as the "peace dividend" of CUTS IN THE MILITARY.
In fact, remember when Clinton boasted of cutting the number of people in Govt? It was all in the DoD and armed services. Bush had a WAR ON AS OF 9/11/2001! It's a different situation, and called for a different response.
"And I've gotta believe that we could achieve Homeland Security without breaking the bank as well. Lord knows that in a $2.3 Trillion budget, there's loads and loads of fat to be trimmed, and we oughtta be making said trimming more of a priority!!"
I agree 100%! I think the spending is too high, and we could easily cut the share of Federal spending relative to GDP to 15% or less - we could and should cut spending, or at least cap it to 0% total growth for a decade...
btw on "amnesty" - now that the Democrats are fully behind REAL AMNESTY it behooves us not to be fooled into thinking the Bush plan is the same as that. And we should also realize that the "pro-amnesty" position is now the Democrat position, and that "pro-enforce-the-law" position is the one held by most Republicans ... Kerry supports "an earned legalization program for undocumented immigrants" hmmm.