This is what is happening with Bush and the Republicans in charge:
However, Cato's fiscal analyst Veronique de Rugy notes: "The current president easily eclipses his father on federal spending growth." De Rugy and Cato researcher Tad DeHaven calculate that in real, or inflation-adjusted terms, non-defense discretionary outlays will rise about 20.8 percent in George W. Bush's first three years in office (through FY2004). That growth far exceeds the 11.6 percent growth in the first three years of former President Bush's administration. Indeed, the current president's three-year real increase exceeds Jimmy Carter's term (13.8 percent), Ronald Reagan's first term (-13.5 percent), Reagan's second term (-3.2 percent), Bill Clinton's first term (-0.7 percent), and Clinton's second term (8.2 percent). See table for details.
Gridlock sounds pretty good until a real conservative can be elected in 2008.
A. 9-11. (This alone, according to various reports, cost the US Economy roughly $90 billion. (Immediate impact)
B. Increased spending on the Military for a build-up of B.
C. WOT (roughly $150 billion in the last 2 years)
D. Inherited a recession from the previous president.
If these 2 things didn't impact the economy, then nothing would have. Nothing shakes spending by consumers like a threat on their life. So, if I may ask, how could we as a country overcome all these things without an increase in spending?
And clearly these dimbulbs fail to realize that in our Constitutional form of government no President can spend ANY money whatsoever. A President can impound funds temporarilly, but no President can possibly do that as standard policy and practice, and govern anything else effectively. Andrew Jackson's methods come to mind. These fellows do their position a major disservice to write so carelessly.
Even Stephan Moore of Cato knows better than to spout this kind of idiocy.