Replies

Perhaps a basic level in civics is in order. Congress passes spending bills last time I checked, the President signs them. Having a GOP led congress, at odds with a Dem spending plan would produce a budget battle of sorts that would at least keep massive spending in check. Even Clinton vetoed spending bills. Look at the numbers and compare Bush to Clinton, the results should be obvious.

And to the point that the war on terror/iraq has been costly, thats one thing to consider, but its not the entire budget, and the massive increases in all things other then military spending should be taken into account. A 400 billino medicare entitlement (which will baloon over time to probablby 4 times that) isn't free either, and its fiscal impact is far more detrimental to the saftey of the nation then knocking off a two bit tyrant in the ME.

I supported the war in Iraq, and still do, but it is by no means the sole reason for the massive spending increases in this administration. The GOP has its hand in the cookie jar, and no one is telling them to pull it out.

Turn a blind eye all you like, what good does an R by your name do if you act like a D?

Having a GOP led congress, at odds with a Dem spending plan would produce a budget battle of sorts that would at least keep massive spending in check. Even Clinton vetoed spending bills. Look at the numbers and compare Bush to Clinton, the results should be obvious.

So is Howard Dean your candidate? Any Democrat is better than a Republican, just so your green-eye-shade numbers will get closer together?

Your analysis of the Medicare bill is at total variance with Newt Gingrich's analysis, which says it will SAVE money, in the long run, by beginning some kind of privatization of Medicare. Doing nothing is even more costly.

Bush spends too much money, for sure, but I'm not going to pitch him over the side. The alternative is simply too horrible, in the face of the war on terror, to contemplate.

Good post. I can understand a person who supports Bush as the lesser of two evils, or even because they believe that the war on terrorism trumps domestic issues until the war is won. However, I cannot understand how a conservative can turn a blind eye to this fiscal irresponsibility going on amongst their own. Not even an expression of disapproval, not for the man, but some things the man has done. They are like those loathsome parents who think that their own child can do no wrong.

I agree with your point that a legislative and executive branch that is split between parties may be the best hope we have of at least putting the big government goliath on tranquilizers. I wanted to add that conservatives may consider not voting for Bush in the election in order to whip the party to the right. Add another defeat to 1992 from lack of conservative enthusiasm and Republicans will hopefully get the message that in order to win elections, they have to act like conservatives.