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."
Morphing? They've been the party of "same but less" for decades. That should have been obvious with the drugs for geezers bidding war during the election.
More cheap shots. The issue of this thread has to do with Bush`s liberal spending habits in 2005. Not what happened in Beruit in 1983.
Is that why Reagan won in a landslide?
Thank you for saying this.
Rohrbacher and company are too cowardly to actually cut spending.
He and the other House Republicans have the power of the purse, not Bush.
With carter/mondale as your opponents, that is not exactly a difficult task, IMO.
BTW, no coat tails in the House.
"More cheap shots. The issue of this thread has to do with Bush`s liberal spending habits in 2005. Not what happened in Beruit in 1983."
No, it's about Chickens*** Rohrbacher blaming his lack of testicular fortitude on someone else.
Reagan did sign the IRCA of 1986. That was a mistake. Bush wants to give backdoor amnesty to illegals and call it a guest worker program. Bush wants to make the same mistake Reagan made. That's stupid! Btw. If the main enforcement point of the IRCA was folllowed, punishing employers who hired illegals, the one time amnesty deal would have paid off and the IRCA would have been a success. Bush wants to leave the US borders wide open, in hopes that Hispanics will vote Republican in 2006 and so businesses will continue to have a flow of cheap labor.
PrseBush is the leader of the GOP. Rohrbacher is not the leader of the GOP. Bush has sat back for 4-1/2 years and signed off on every spending bill that came before him. Not one veto. That's why Bush is spending more on welfare and entitlement today, then any POTUS before him. Bush will go down as a big government Republican and a liberal spender. Not a domestic legacy to be proud of.
Hair Boy speaks!
"PrseBush is the leader of the GOP. Rohrbacher is not the leader of the GOP."
Congress has the power of the purse. Bush is not Congress. Rohrbacher is a member of Congress.
Bush has sat back for 4-1/2 years and signed off on every spending bill that came before him. Not one veto."
And Rohrbacher voted for every one of those spending bills.
LoL! Me either darnit. I mean, he's seems like he doesn't even care about a third term!
During their first three years in office, Reagan CUT nondefense discretionary spending 13.5%. Bush raised it 20.8%. Sorry guys. Don't disparage Reagan's name to make Bush seem like less of a disaster. We made a mistake with him, thinking he was different from his father. Lets admit it and not do it again.
uh, Reagan had a dem controlled congress, he had to horse trade with them.
Uh I didn't start the trouble, you did.
BTW say hi to hillary when she makes an obigatory stop when visiting your DNC basement cubicle.
When they get their little areas cleaned up I think they'll have room to bitch and moan about others. So let them get on with the program and get the populace [their constituents] behind them and I bet it will happen. jmo.
Bush has no influence over the GOP Congress?
Wrong.
Bush has tremendous influence over the GOP Congress.
The problem is Bush and most of the Republicans in Congress are on the same page. They both support liberal spending legislation. Bad policy shouldn't be the refuge for conservatives.
Reagan Man even pulled out the victim card on this one, NP.
"Bush has tremendous influence over the GOP Congress."
Apparently, he has so much power over Congress that he can force Rohrbacher to vote for the very spending bills he's whining about...
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.