Actually, there were two tax cuts. There was the initial $1.35 trillion tax cut, followed by a $100 billion tax cut stimulus package. At first, the tax cut/stimulus package, was separate, but eventually, was rolled into the bigger tax cut measure. Many economists have said, the $100 billion tax cut/stimulus package, significantly bolstered the US economy, towards its 5.4% growth rate in the first quarter of 2002.
It would have been great if Bush and Congress, had cut government spending, along with passing the tax cuts. But because they didn't cut spending, doesn't reduce the impact these tax cuts will have on limiting the overall growth of government, in the next ten years. That was one of the positive outcomes/accomplishmnets, of the Reagan tax cuts, overall government spending was slowed.
>>>Overall, he has proposed the largest increase in federal spending since FDR--hardly a conservative stance.
Your statement is flatout wrong and factually untrue. I'd like to see exactly where you got those statistics from. According to the 2003 Federal Budget, overall spending will increase 3.5%, ( from $2.052 trillion to $2.128 trillion) with defense receiving a plus 8.6% and non-defense descretionary spending getting a plus 5.6%. Homeland Security gets a whomping 111% increase, from $12 billion in 2002, to $25 billion in 2003.
The greatest increases in government spending, came under FDR and LBJ. The spending increases under FDR, came about because of WWII and the increases under LBJ, came about because of the Viet Nam War and Great Society programs. Recent increases under President Bush, have come about because of the costs related to the war on terrorism and that's reflected in the 8.6% DoD increase. The #1 job of the federal government, is to serve, protect and defend America/Americans, from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. President Bush is doing his job.
>>>He traded the ABM for NMDS and willingly agreed to LESSER weapons than the most liberal disarmament freaks. This was a no-win political ploy that results in less national security at a time of greater vulnerability.
Reductions in America's nuclear arsenal will not hurt our military effectiveness. The recent agreement with Prez Putin, is for strategic weapons and doesn't apply to any tactical nuclear arms. Besides, they're not being destroyed, just warehoused. Having 1700-2200 nuclear weapons on hand, is more then enough firepower. This wasn't a political ploy, because Bush intended on reducing the nuclear numbers with, or without the Russians agreement, unilaterally.
>>>Yep, but didn't rescind military abortions overseas.
"The Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY 1996 and the Department of Defense Authorization Act for FY 1996 revise the DoD policy. Prepaid abortions are no longer allowed, except in cases in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest. Please assure compliance with the new law. Authority to provide prepaid abortions in overseas facilities is limited to cases in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest. The new statutory provision does not affect the current law or policy regarding abortions in cases in which the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. In such cases, abortions may be provided using appropriated funds."
On June 9th, 1999, an attempt by Reps. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) and Carrie Meek (D-FL) to lift the ban on privately funded abortions for military personnel and dependents stationed overseas in overseas military medical facilities failed. The vote on the amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 1401) was 225-203.
That's the current policy. Military women defending our country overseas can't terminate an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy at a Military hospital, even if they pay for it and a Doctor agrees to do it, unless it's rape, incest or it endangers the mother's life. In rape or incest cases, the servicewoman must pay for the abortion.
"* made no deal for release of the EP-3 plane crew from Red China"
>>>And I've got some land in Florida for sale.
I don't want any land, I just want your explanation of the deal that occured, between Bush and the RoC.
"* promoted increases for off shore oil drilling * has strongly advocated drilling in ANWR * pushed for building more nuclear power plants * campaigned to reduce our dependency on oil imports"
>>>All of these have shown no results because he has shown no backbone. We were told he was saving his political capital for later, but he has shown no desire to spend ANYTHING on principle.
Without control of the Senate, there is no way Bush is going to get what he wants on any energy related issue. If you understood politics, you'd understand why this is true. It has nothing to do with spending political capital. You first have to control the debate in the Senate. Republicans don't control Senate debate, because they don't control the Senate calander. The Democrats do! Bush isn't a dictator, he's a democratically elected leader, whose party controls one of two, chambers of the Congress and with a slim majority too boot! Wake up already!!
"* repealed many last minute Clinton EO`s
>>>Name them. He has not rescinded the most flagrant abuses and has shown no desire to do so. He has also shown no interest in rooting out the leftover corruption and treason in federal offices. We are at "war" and no one is willing to lay a glove on the un-American traitors left from X42's regime. How conservative is that?
Bush imposed an across the board moratorium, that blocked any new EO's from being printed in the Federal Register. That permanently halted any of Clinton's most recent executive orders. Most rules can't take effect until they've appeared in the Federal Register for a certain period of time. How many EO's this action stopped, isn't public knowledge.
A few of those Clinton EO`s that were stopped cold, are for new environmental restrictions on runoff from animal feeding operations; more than 800 pages of new guidelines for managed care programs under Medicare; and Clinton's designation, made hours before Bushes inaguration, of the former military post at Governor's Island in New York Harbor, as a national monument.
The Bush administartion also imposed a freeze on hiring of new federal employees "unless and until", a Bush-appointed agency head approves the hiring, preventing holdover Clinton officials from hiring new employees.
Here's a few links to articles about overturning presidential EO's, Tough to Undo What Clinton Did and Clinton's Executive Orders They might help to open your closed mind on the subject.
As for investigating Clinton and other members of 'der schlickmeister's' administration, that would be a waste of taxpayer money, especially at this point. If President Bush had proceeded with DoJ inquiries, the liberal press, many liberal special interest groups and regular old fashioned American's, would have torn him up for a multitude of reasons. Bush said, he wanted to move on and start out fresh. That's what he did. You don't like that, okay, but the time has come to get over it already. There is no way, that Bush should be held responsible, for not going after possible wrongdoings, during the Clinton years. There were three different IC's, that investigated the Clinton's and many of their closet associates. After five years, those IC's basically came away, empty handed. Some convictions and several jailings, here and there, but nothing BIG-TIME!
You want perfection out of this president, it ain't gonna happen, pilgrim. No president and no human being is perfect. We've got serious political gridlock in Wash-DC today. In fact, we've had political gridlock in DC for the last 20 years! But Bush is doing his Constitutional duties, to the best of his ability and so are all his people. You can criticize Bush all you want, but stop being a typical, back bench bomb thrower. It serves no good purpose. America is at war. If you consider yourself an American patriot, then start acting like one. And NO, I'm not calling you unpatriotic. So don't even go there, bucko.
Many economists say anything. Tax cuts alone do not decrease government growth. The government doesn’t operate on a real budget; it grows like cancer without regard to the health of the body (republic).
As far as budget growth overall, I (and I assume most others) don’t have any problem increasing DOD outlays during “war.” 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.
Reductions in America's nuclear arsenal will not hurt our military effectiveness. The recent agreement with Prez Putin, is for strategic weapons and doesn't apply to any tactical nuclear arms. Besides, they're not being destroyed, just warehoused. Having 1700-2200 nuclear weapons on hand, is more then enough firepower. This wasn't a political ploy, because Bush intended on reducing the nuclear numbers with, or without the Russians agreement, unilaterally.
I thank you for your opinion on nuclear readiness. The fact is that the strategic threat to the US is greater than any time during the cold war. Bush’s posture is similar to having armed guards without ammunition. Yes, they can respond, but it may be too late.
Tactical nukes are not a deterrence, strategic nukes are. And yes, that is my opinion. I didn’t care for Bush 1’s decision to get rid of SAC and closewatch either.
Military women defending our country overseas can't terminate an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy at a Military hospital, even if they pay for it and a Doctor agrees to do it, unless it's rape, incest or it endangers the mother's life. In rape or incest cases, the servicewoman must pay for the abortion.
I really dropped the ball here. I am glad to hear it. W has been pretty good with pro-life issues and I hope he continues. I believe he is honestly pro-life. Overall, I think he is a good man, but not exceptionally conservative.
I don't want any land, I just want your explanation of the deal that occured, between Bush and the RoC.
I have no idea of the deal that occurred; however, I have no doubt one did. How long before Kennedy’s deal with Kruschev was made public?
Bush isn't a dictator, he's a democratically elected leader, whose party controls one of two, chambers of the Congress and with a slim majority too boot! Wake up already!!
Duh, really? I though he would be able to use the “bully pulpit” without becoming a dictator. He could have at least backed Pickering and made some noise!!
As far as EOs go, just because something is hard doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. The “monuments” are nothing but monumental abuse of property rights. It’s worth fighting for! Bush would gain a huge block of voters if he would stand with the common man against the environmentalists and bureaucrats. Yes, my mind is closed because I have principles. I don’t believe in leaving a wrong because fighting to rescind it is hard.
As far as investigations, I don’t care about investigations. Political isolation works just as well. Everyone knows it is damn-near impossible to fire civil servants, but there are ways to remove them from power. The Clintonites need to be eviscerated!
I support Bush, but I can still hope for better from him. Gridlock is good, but only when it paralyzes the behemoth. I don’t want efficient government; I want less government! I believe Bush is a good, moral man, but he is not a conservative saint, nor a political fighter. (And no I never said he is a coward--he is a deal-maker.) Patriotism and love have a lot in common— honesty is foremost and we should set the bar high and expect results.
It seems Bush got what he wanted on an energy-related issue today: $235 million in federal funds used by the President to shelter Florida's Everglades and beaches from oil and gas drilling. The settlement buys out nine oil and gas leases to prevent drilling in Gulf of Mexico areas closest to Pensacola, and does not require legislation and will proceed without Congressional approval. Bush has repeatedly said that we need to become less dependent from foreign oil, and yet off the coast of Florida there are potentially vast reserves of oil and natural gas.
Could the rationale for this action possibly be because the President’s brother is Governor of Florida who is running for re-election, or is it “because I don’t understand politics?”
By the way, I am awake, although this administration is beginning to make me feel that it’s all actually a bad dream.
Signing into law acts that are patently unconstitutional -and knowing this before signing them - is NOT doing his "Constitutional duties."