What is he going to do ? Veto a bill that has most of what he wants in it ? Alienate enough of the republicans in Congress that he cannot maintain the majority ? Do you understand the political process at all ? You tell me how he is supposed to chastise those within his party and not have them say 'screw you' when he wants something from them ?
Clinton's last budget is relevant because he knew he would not have to answer for it, and the republican Congress allowed it. Also, your figures for Clinton's first three years are distorted because you are including intelligence cuts and other security program cuts that do not fall under military spending. You come off sounding like a Clinton apologist.
You simply cannot break from your narrow thought process, it is not non-defense/military discretionary spending that is the category to be used, it is non-security discretionary spending (which adds intelligence and Homeland Security programs that do not fall under military aegis), under Bush that area DID NOT go up 20% in the first three years. I provided you the statistics. You are mixing apples and oranges by including security related spending in your statistic. I have already decried the Prescription Drug Bill, it stinks, so we agree on that, but I also understand the politics involved in removing it from the political debate in 2004. I also realize that it is much smaller (half to one third the size) than what Kerry was running on.
Under what delusional world can you claim Reagan offset increases in military spending ? The deficit and debt under Reagan grew faster than it has under Bush, that is a fact.
And then you totally ignore the last two FY budgets (2005 & 2006).
Regarding education, the political atmosphere has changed drastically since Reagan ran on that platform, the electorate is much more polarized, the swing voters have become a much narrower segment of the population. If you want to win in today's political climate, you cannot cede one inch of ground to an opponent. Bush's education spending is another aspect I disagree with him on, but compared to entitlement programs, it amounts to very little.
The conservative focus needs to be on social security and medicare/medicaid reform. And sadly, the republican Congress has dropped the ball. That doesn't mean a blanket condemnation, there are members who are putting their money where their mouth is, just not enough of them.
And yet you're telling me that he'll use the line-item veto power against those very same Congressmen? And what are they going to do in retaliation anyway? Not vote for tax cuts, just to spite him? Cut troop funding for Iraq? Yeah, that'll show him.
By the way, your "within his party" comment makes an excellent case for why we have better fiscal discipline when the legislative and executive branch are controlled by opposite parties. That's why I'll have no qualms at all about voting Consitution Party in '08 unless the GOP puts forth someone top-notch.
Clinton's last budget is relevant because he knew he would not have to answer for it, and the republican Congress allowed it.
It's only relevant if you thought I was somehow defending his conservative credentials. What in fact I was doing is showing how Republicans are more inclined to be fiscally conservative when the Democrats are at the other end of the power scale then when they're in charge of everything.
it is non-security discretionary spending (which adds intelligence and Homeland Security programs that do not fall under military aegis), under Bush that area DID NOT go up 20% in the first three years. I provided you the statistics.
Alright, 16% (when combining your three percentages), not 20%. Still far more than enough, considering that this is, as you say, adjusted for inflation. Not something to be doing when mandatory spending is increasing (much of it from a change in formula done at his behest), and when we're fighting a war.
I have already decried the Prescription Drug Bill, it stinks, so we agree on that, but I also understand the politics involved in removing it from the political debate in 2004.
Well, that's just lovely, but I can only judge him on what he's done, not on how he advertises himself. Although even in that department, he comes up rather short. His "compassionate conservative" mantra is downright oxymoronic, and there's been quite an interesting rhetorical shift from the 2000 to the 2004 campaign. In the first, he said "My opponent wants government to run your lives, I trust you to be able to run your own." In '04, he said, "My opponent wants government to run your lives, I want government to help you achieve your dreams."
Under what delusional world can you claim Reagan offset increases in military spending ?
I didn't say he offset it completely, but he did offset it. That is, he reduced non-defense spending so as to mitigate the increase in debt caused by his necessary increases in military spending. Bush has shown the opposite inclination.
And then you totally ignore the last two FY budgets (2005 & 2006).
And then you totally ignore the response I've made to that.
Regarding education, the political atmosphere has changed drastically since Reagan ran on that platform
You're saying the country got less conservative since then, to the point where the U.S. today is more liberal than Massachusetts then? Back when there was no Rush Limbaugh, no Ann Coulter, no Fox News, no any of the conservative media that we have now? By the way, how well did the Republicans do in the 1982 congressional elections?