"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.
"...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..." Now yer speaking to my heart!! I've said before that we oughtta be closely tracking spending as a percentage of GDP and look to knock it down 1% a year as long as it takes to get us down to 15%, 12%, 8% (as low as we can politically take it). By doing so, we would guarantee record GDP growth for as long as we continued to shrink the Fed's negative impact on the economy, and it would force the Fed to prioritize exactly what we should be spending the taxpayer's money on.
FReegards...MUD