Posted on 09/23/2005 8:13:00 AM PDT by Reagan Man
(Capitol Hill) CNSNews.com -- He may still be the darling of cultural conservatives, but President Bush's budget decisions have prompted one of his allies in Congress to assert that conservatives have no business comparing Bush to one of the most popular conservative presidents ever - Ronald Reagan.
"Some of us came here (to Washington DC) to reduce the size of government after the model of Ronald Reagan or others who tried to cut out government programs that weren't necessary. Others came here to streamline government or to make it more efficient, or to reflect more traditional values," U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) told Cybercast News Service Wednesday.
"President Bush isn't here to cut the size of government, he's here to perhaps have government more reflect the values of the people," Rohrabacher explained, following a Capitol Hill news conference sponsored by the 110-member Republican Study Committee aimed at promoting federal spending cuts to offset the costs of Hurricane Katrina.
"But at times like this, when we have an emergency where so much money is needed, it is incumbent upon us to cut the spending that is not absolutely necessary, not just make it reflect this value or that value," Rohrabacher added. Congress has already authorized two hurricane relief bills totaling $62.3 billion and some experts estimate that Hurricane Katrina will eventually cost the federal government $200 billion.
Rohrabacher dismissed the Sept. 13 remarks of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who argued that the federal budget was running at peak efficiency. "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority, we've pared it down pretty good," DeLay said.
"I am not sure what Tom had in mind, but I know that anybody who can't see that there is still fat in the federal budget probably can't tell the difference between a pig and a race horse," Rohrabacher said.
U.S. Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) also warned about unrestrained federal spending.
"I think the mounting federal debt could someday challenge this country in a way that no military power has ever been successful in doing," Franks told Cybercast News Service.
"In 10-12 years, we are going to be facing kind of a perfect storm, when the baby boomers like [me] who have been a source of great revenue for the country, begin to retire," Franks said.
"Rather than putting into the system, [baby boomers will] begin to take out of it and when the trajectory of some of these social programs that we have are on par now to crowd out all discretionary spending, we are in a situation where just the debt itself could take a third or more of the revenues in 10-12 years," Franks explained.
"That is something we can't sustain," he continued. "Any time a country has done that for any extended period of time, they have gone into economic decline and in many cases complete disaster."
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) said the proposed hurricane recovery spending plan offers Congress the opportunity "to actually start whittling away at the size of government and our budget" in order to afford those unexpected expenses.
He also disagreed with the notion held by many supply side economists that "deficits don't matter.
"I have been in these arguments with folks who suggest that deficits don't matter, but I have never heard them say that lower deficits aren't better," Tancredo said.
The Colorado Republican proposed selling off 15 percent of federally-owned land to raise revenues to offset the costs of Hurricane Katrina.
Members of the conservative National Taxpayer Union were also on hand with signs reading "Compensate for Katrina, Cut Costs," "Rescue Taxpayers from a flood of red ink" and "Deficit Spending is a Disaster Pending."
You know what the deal is. The issue of the thread has to do with Congressman making the feds Katrina relief funding, the perfect time to address out of control spending. The article makes Reagan's conservative spending policies part of the issue. Bringing up Reagan's record on spending is valid. If you take the time and read the posts you'll see I addressed the comparisons of Bush43 v Reagan on spending and Reagan comes out the clear winner.
What you did was lose your cool and engage in cheap shots. Beirut Lebanon in 1983 has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. If you really want to debate that issue, fine. But I don't believe you would except any rational viewpoint other then your own.
Exactly. Instead of being a principled leader saying "This nonsense is vetoed the instant it hits my desk!", he was true to his professional-politician nature - pandering for votes and hoping the courts would save American liberty.
Weaselly, in other words. And we all lost because of his lack of principles and backbone.
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, et al.
he isn't? hmmm.
In another two seconds I came up with the farm bill and the highway bill.
Ok, those monsters were created by congress, but only because it knew the president would not only not veto, but wouldn't even put up a fight.
LOL Figured as much. Weak responses, no debate, turns tail, run and hide. Next time, don't waste my time.
Thank you for pointing that out, I hope more people notice. He has no shame either. I'm suspicious, that's a trait our political enemies have in abundance.
I agree! Bush is not a conservative of any type at all!!!
Reagan compromised too. One must to govern. I think history has been rewritten around here.
Then I should not have posted here, and I will read no more because the comments here make me very upset. I am ashamed to see Freepers who bash the President as badly as the left.
Is Dana thinking of running for president?
Since Congress holds the purse strings, it is more than just a little hypocritical of the named men, to be whinging now, about their own handiwork.
We've known each other since our days on lucianne.com. I've never known you to be so unreasonable and thin skinned. There is nothing wrong with criticizing any elected official, even PresBush, as long as you stick to the issues and the facts. That's what I've done. Sorry you see it different. The Founding Fathers are turning in their graves at the thought of a POTUS being above criticism and for political dissent to be ridiculed. I asked people to be civil and what did I get from some FReepers. Cheap shots at former President Reagan and untruths about his record in the Oval Office. Shameful and pathetic.
Ain't that nice.
From my post at RE:#82. When it comes to holding down social welfare and entitlement spending, aka. HUMAN RESOURCES, Bush is no Reagan.
According to OMB:
Clinton's last budget spent 64.1% on HR programs. Bush spent 65.5% in 2002, 65.6% in 2003, 64.8% 2004, 64.0% 2005, estimate 65.3% in 2006 it will rise to 65.3%, estimate 66.1% 2007, estimate 66.9% in 2008 and estimate 67.2% in 2009 and 2010. With Bush`s track record those estimates will likey be higher.
When Reagan took office HR spending under Jimmah Carta was 53.4% of the budget. Over the next 8 years under Reagan, that spending was significantly reduced. 1982= 52.1%, 1983=52.7%, 1984= 50.7%, 1985= 49.9%, 1986= 48.6%, 1987= 50.0%, 1988= 50.1%, 1989= 49.7%.
Let's be fair though. Bush did cut taxes three times and the impact on the economy was significant. The Reagan tax reform package of 1981 reduced the tax burden on Americans by 5.3%. The Bush tax cuts reduced the taxes by 3.8%, 2.5%, 2.7%. Total, 8.1%. Not quite as big as the Kennedy tax cut of 1964, but larger then Reagan's.
Here's the analysis by the Tax Foundation. Comparing the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Tax Cuts
Linked and bookmarked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.