[Reagan Man]

Right. Reagan didn't reduce the overall size of the federal government. Reagan worked on a set of policy priorities that shifted federal spending from welfare entitlements to national defense. Not only did Reagan reduce the welfare state, he significantly reduced discretionary spending. Especially in his first term. Reagan did all this with a Democrat controlled House. Bush has a GOP controlled House, yet he can't reduce the welfare state like Reagan did. Bush did promote and signoff on the largest welfare entitlement program since Medicare itself was signed into law by LBJ. The new Bush trillion dollar Prescription Drug Program joins Social Security and Medicare, as the biggest boondoggles in the history of the federal bureaucracy. In keeping with Bush`s liberal spending habits, expansive government and no vetoes. Bush has shown he has no idea what fiscal responsibility is all about. Not to mention, Bush is no conservative.

[sinkspur]

In keeping with Bush`s liberal spending habits, expansive government and no vetoes. Bush has shown he has no idea what fiscal responsibility is all about. Not to mention, Bush is no conservative.

Bush has cut taxes, as Reagan did.

But, unlike Reagan, he has never raised taxes once, much less twice.

[RobbyS]

But he is not a liberal Republican like Nixon and Ford, or even his old man. He is a conservative Republican. Most o the people who worked for Reagan were conservative Republicans.

But as for the scenario of constraining the welfare state through greater national defense, the fact is that he maintained the welfare state apparatus and once military spending was reduced, Dod shrank, but the rest of government actually grew. This was fed by Clinton's tax increases, which were not taken down until the Bush tax cuts. The latter, of course, were only relative. I don't think they even took us back to the levels of 1992.

[DLfromthedesert]

To top it off, this program was written by the K Street lobbyists working for the pharmacetical companies.

In other words, our "representatives" represent only big money lobbyists, not their constituents (I realize this does not apply to evry single one of them, but WAY too many)