Above and beyond the welfare issue, cutting taxes while massively increasing spending is nothing to be proud of, Hank. The GOP stood for balanced budgets in the 1990s - heck, it helped carry them into power. Now, we're the Santa Claus party - we tell the people they can have both tax cuts AND increased spending. Reagan was hamstrung by a Dem House. Bush has no such constraints. He could simply sit there with his veto pen, but he instead demands that spending be increased. Which, in the end, makes him no better than the Dems at shrinking the size of the federal government, which used to be a key plank of this website. I guess we burned it a long time ago and I didn't notice.
I will wait for your JPEG or Gif of Ronald Reagan in tar and feathers.
Gotta go and get some business finished, will be back later to see the replies.
As witnessed on these threads, it's obvious that Republicans are not lock-step, koolaid drinking non-thinkers who toe the party line. They have very diverse views of the issues.
Just because there is a "Republican" majority doesn't mean there is a single school of thought among those Republicans on any issue. Therefore, Bush can't depend on the Republicans in Congress to vote in concert on every issue.
And by the way, OWK, anyone who thinks a President can simply keep vetoing everything that comes across his desk is politically naive.