[Peach]

I like it. It's a plan I can support.

[VRW Conspirator]

Bump

[VRW Conspirator]

We need...The Spending Control Amendment that I will soon introduce...

Yeah, before we reduce the size of government or after?

[RJCogburn]

In 1995, the first year of the Republican House majority, Congress actually cut discretionary spending

It's a lot easier to say "no" to a dem president. It is harder to say "no" to your own guy.

A key part of the argument for electing a dem president.

[Alberta's Child]

Chris Cox is full of crap. He voted in favor of the two most idiotic "big government" bills last year -- the Medicare prescription drug bill and the national "Do Not Call" legislation.

In addition, you can go to his website and see him brag about all of the "goodies" that he's brought home to his district in California.

With all due respect, Mr. Cox -- You're part of the freakin' problem.

[Mr. Jeeves]

A veto strategy would require only one-third of the Congress and the President working together to control spending.

Republican Senate response: "Are you crazy? We can't do that! The Democrats and the media might call us mean-spirited!"

[WOSG]

Great Plan.

The key is to keep spending growth at 0%. grow it less than the economy.

We should also support the Bush proposal to put spending limits into law.

[WOSG]

5. Even before we complete the process of amending the Constitution, we need to enact legislation to put enforcement teeth in our budget process. The budget should be an enforceable law, not a non-binding resolution. To enforce budget limits, a three-fifths supermajority would be needed to exceed budget caps. And the President would be given authority for line-item reduction, to cut back spending to levels enacted in the budget.

This is good because it can be done quickly and with Congressional majority. Bush also supports a "PAYGO" type rule for all spending. It's not a cure-all but it is a key discipline WHICH FAVORS MOVING US TOWARDS LIMITED GOVERNMENT.