Sorry that misses the POINT entirely. there are many reasons and circumstance, such as 9/11 and beefed up 'homeland security' and other things, that have caused spending increases.
GOP laxity is one of those problems, but I can tell you this: EVERY TIME these past 4 years it was a bigger v smaller govt vote, who was pushing for bigger spending? Democrats. who passed the Farm Bill? Democrats. Who complained that even generated Dept of Ed spending increases wasnt enough? Democrats. Who OPPOSED the tax cuts that Bush passed? in 2001? Democrats. in 2002? Democrats. In 2003? Democrats. Against Tax Cuts. For Higher Spending, again and again and again.
Now it's also the case that, completely out of power, the Democrats have become more irresponsible and may be 'pulling the Republicans their way'. Well even if so, it is lunacy to give Democrats MORE POWER when you oppose their higher taxes and bigger spending agenda. Lunacy! get 55 GOP senators and Bush in the white house and a bigger House majority and then *demand* they live up to their promises on fiscal prudence.
Bush is demanding rigid spending constraints going forward. he proposed them in the FY2005 budget. Kerry is proposing $1 trillion in new spending giveaways.
Bush is insisting we make the tax cuts permanent. Kerry is insisting we repeal them, and then add new taxes on business ('close loopholes' aka closing needed tax relief efforts).
JOHN KERRY HAS A VERY LIBERAL, TAX-N-SPEND RECORD IN THE SENATE ... the basic reality is that Conservatives would have much less power than they have today to stop the Federal spending steamroller.
Bush is by far the more fiscally responsible of the two choices.
Enclosed - Kerry's abysmal records on Budget and Taxes, horrible ratings from NTU and Americans for Tax Reform and other groups:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103 Budget, Spending and Taxes
(Back to top)
2003 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2003 On the votes that the American Shareholders Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2003 According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2003 Senator Kerry, on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending 14 percent of the time.
2003 On the votes that the Citizens Against Government Waste considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 22 percent of the time.
2002 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 10 percent of the time.
2002 According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2002 Senator Kerry, on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending 18 percent of the time.
2002 On the votes that the Citizens Against Government Waste considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 13 percent of the time.
2002 On the votes that the Taxpayers for Common Sense considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 45 percent of the time.
2001-2002 On the votes that the National Tax Limitation Committee considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 3 percent of the time.
2001-2002 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2001-2002, the Concord Coalition gave Senator Kerry a rating of 65 percent.
2001 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 5 percent of the time.
2001 According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2001 Senator Kerry, on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending 7 percent of the time.
2001 On the votes that the Citizens Against Government Waste considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 5 percent of the time.
2001 On the votes that the Taxpayers for Common Sense considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 27 percent of the time.
2001 On the votes that the American Shareholders Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2000 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 15 percent of the time.
2000 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2000, the Concord Coalition gave Senator Kerry a rating of 33 percent.
2000 On the votes that the Taxpayers for Common Sense considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 59 percent of the time.
2000 On the votes that the Citizens Against Government Waste considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 28 percent of the time.
1999-2000 On the votes that the National Tax Limitation Committee considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 3 percent of the time.
1999 According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 1999 Senator Kerry, on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending 11 percent of the time.
1999 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 1999, the Concord Coalition gave Senator Kerry a rating of 45 percent.
"Most are acrobat files so I won't link directly... My
conclusion in this is either Presidents spend less in their second terms, or a split government is best for less spending. -The gridlock reasons of course." NO, you miss the real story. It's not the President - it's the Congress. CONGRESS sets the spending tone.
The real story is this: Newt Gingrich and the Congress from 1994-1998 was the BEST CONGRESS IN 50 YEARS on spending restraint. IN FY 1995 we cut the deficit by $100 billion - just by not increasing spending.
After 1998, things startedgoing downhill. Once we 'balanced the budget' and the PAYGO rules were relaxed, and leadership went from the 'class of 1994' to the more moderate Republicans and appropriators, the spending started to grow more. We went on a 4 year diet and once we were done, we started going back to old ways.
I think the Congress can get back its fiscal responsibility, but I know it wont happen with a Kerry in the White House. We need structural fixes to social security and medicare, and Bush has said he's open to that and Kerry opposes it. Only with Republicans in Congress and the White House could we get that done.