When it comes to economics, I'll put my trust in those professionals who are the experts in the field and whose opinion, I value. And I never said tax cuts alone, decrease government growth. It's a fact though, that reducing taxes takes money out of the government coffers and leaves less for Congress to spend. That's basic economics 101.
>>>The fact is that the strategic threat to the US is greater than any time during the cold war.
That's not true. Strategic weaponry are ICBM`s. As in, weapons designed or trained to strike an enemy, at the sources of his military, economic, or political power. There were 25,000 Soviet strategic missiles, targeted at the US during the Cold War. Today, there are fewer then 7,000 and that will soon be down to 1700-2200. The Red Chinese have anywhere from 18 to 50 missiles that could reach California. May be. The British and the French have no reason to attack us with nuclear weapons. Just who should America be afraid of? Korea? India? Pakistan? Iraq? Iran? These countries don't have strategic capabilities that could reach the US. I doubt a rogue nation or terrorist group could get their hands on an ICBM. May be a tactical nuke, may be a dirty bomb, but not a strategic WMD.
>>>However, the increases are in no way limited to defense. War is a great excuse to pass all sorts of horrid legislation and increases in federal powers. That doesn’t mean it is right, nor true.
I gave you the link to the 2003 Fderal Budget. It increases spending on mandatory programs, from $1.133 trillion to $1.159 trillion. That's an inflationary increase of 2.2% and mild by comparison to recent Clinton budgets.
>>>I though he would be able to use the bully pulpit...
As Senate Majority leader, Tom Daschle has become the greatest obstructionist in recent memory. He is doing a good job of striking down, whatever the President wants done and burying every piece of legislation that lands on his desk.
>>>As far as EOs go, just because something is hard doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.
With all due respect, you need to brush up on your politics. The two articles I linked for you, explains the difficulties in reversing older EO`s. The last minute EO`s, that Clinton put through, never say the light of day. And if you're POTUS, you don't make unnecessary waves, that could come back to haunt you, down the road. Even the Founding Fathers understood how to play politics. In fact, most of them were masters at politics.
>>>Bush would gain a huge block of voters if he would stand with the common man against the environmentalists...</i.
Bush has stood up to environmentalists. That's what Kyoto was all about and his reversal of the Clinton EO that effected CO2 in the air and lead content of water. Remember?
>>>Yes, my mind is closed because I have principles.
Having principles, doesn't mean you should have a closed mind and compromise plays a big part in politics.
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it."
Ronald Reagan, from his autobiography, An American Life
>>>I don’t want efficient government; I want less government!
I want both an efficient and smaller government. Cutting waste, fraud and abuse would help to give us a smaller government. Tax cuts/tax reform would even shrink the government further. The idea is to stop feeding the bloated bureaucracy in Wash-DC and the size and scope, power and influence of government, will get smaller over time.
It’s a fact that Congress never took ECON 101. They spend what they please regardless of the actual income. It’s called deficit spending. Only real cuts in programs result in less government (well beyond the standard Republican cuts in anticipated growth).
were 25,000 Soviet strategic missiles . . . I doubt a rogue nation or terrorist group could get their hands on an ICBM.
You may believe that a rogue nation couldn’t get control of an ICBM, but it is not beyond consideration. We have to be prepared for just such a possibility. I a firm believer in overwhelming capability. While we have been busy mothballing and destroying our strategic nukes, Russia has modernized its strategic force. While the number of missiles is down, the actual number of warheads is less certain because their MIRV capability is much greater. But, the real threat lies East. The strategic threat from China will grow faster than we can get NMDS online. And the likelihood of China actually attacking the US is greater than Russia during the Cold War. Threats need to be countered before they materialize, but you already know that.
With all due respect, you need to brush up on your politics.
With all due respect, you need to brush up on the Constitution. EOs were never intended to replace the legislative branch. What could come back to haunt you, other than denying the executive a power that is stolen and unconstitutional?
Bush has stood up to environmentalists.
Yes, and I am happy he did so. But the monuments were a direct assault on the entire concept of property ownership. Sorry, but I believe that is worth fighting for.
Having principles, doesn't mean you should have a closed mind and compromise plays a big part in politics.
Yes, principles require a closed mind—at times. You have to choose your battles. Some things you can compromise and some you fight to your dying breath. Let’s remember compromise and capitulation are two different animals.
I want both an efficient and smaller government. Cutting waste, fraud and abuse would help to give us a smaller government.
We agree here. I may be a contentious curmudgeon, but I also know that this is a spat between brothers, not a civil war. I am not working against Bush. I truly respect and like him. He has pleasantly surprised me a couple of times and I expect him to do so again. My greatest prayer is that he will be able to reforge the SCOTUS into a constitutional court.
I think the seemingly conflicting poll results are correct. W has shown he can get people to like him even though they don’t agree with him. This is where I think he really resembles Reagan. While he doesn’t have the polish of Hollywood, he has a sincerity combined with real humility that disarms his enemies. He is genuine and he is honest and that is such an improvement, few can help but be heartened.
Re: China. They just successfully tested a satellite launcher that proved out their MIRV technology. They are now able to proliferate high-accuracy warheads as we and the Russians did. Re: Korea. They can already hit Japan, Alaska, Hawaii, ...and maybe the West Coast with just a test or two more. Your Russian numbers are pathetically wrong. The treaty does nothing about IRBM or tactical warheads...only strategic supposedly. By ALL accounts, The Russians still have well over 20,000 nuclear warheads today. And tactical warheads can be easily retrofitted to strategic use. The Russians have developed a 'barrage' technique for example as one method of cheating. The numbers you see of 8,000 (no one supports your fanciful 7,000 number) is based on strategic launchers, and wishful-thinking about RV-loading on those launchers.
Consider who we are dealing with. These are the same people as before. They wanted their own illegal ABM system while we were to be kept having none. And then there is the INF Treaty. Remember that one?
And of course you did see what the Chzechs discovered in 1997? 73 HIDDEN SS-23s. Missiles the Soviets/Russians failed to include in their INF treaty numbers submitted. Each SS-23 was loaded with 3 warheads. The "Russians" had said right up to this discovery that they were complying fully with the INF and SALT treaties made by the former Soviet Union. Now it looks like they were caught out in the lie, and they had made the Soviets lies their own. And if there were uncounted SS-23s in Czechoslovakia, how many more in Ukraine and Russia proper? And Boris's science advisor at least came and gave testimony to warn us that 85 Russian tactical nukes had gone AWOL. Now we have old Boris gone, and an ex-KGB guy suddenly in charge, and his guys say all weapons are accounted for, and they never were missing. And this is going to be someone we can trust?
Your moniker is an interesting misapplication. Reagan would have seriously considered everything with the so-called 'ex-communists' through the lens of possible deception, (i.e., see Anatoly Golitsyn, "New Lies for Old") As Reagan said, 'Trust, but Verify'. Let me verify first, thank you very much.