Replies

The only area where Bush has increased spending more than marginally is the Medicare Drug Benefit which, let's be frank, was a dumb idea - but, putting the Democrats in power would simply have meant a more expensive one.

Fiscal conservatives would actually like to see some real spending cuts instead of spending increases. By cuts, I mean real dollars and not just a reduction in the rate of growth.

How about $20 billion for AIDS in Africa? How about No Child Left Behind? All originated by the GOP.

There not evil for increasing spending but the reality is that it will turn off a certain segment of the traditional republican voters and in combination with other shortcoming could really result in a significant number of lost voters.

Tonight is a good example of that.

As Democrats are fond of pointing out - No Child Left Behind was passed, but never really funded. Education spending is up by something like $15 Billion in six years.

And $20 Billion for AIDS? Well, I doubt if it was ever actually appropriated or spent.

But, in any case: the damned Federal Budget is about $3 Trillion a year. $20 Billion over, what, four years?

And "real conservatives" or "true conservatives" might well like to see actual cuts in spending but, let's be frank - the class of 1994 never made real cuts in those key budgets (education and health) and, if you read down the discretionary lists, there's not much to cut (in real dollar numbers) elsewhere.

The only areas in the Federal Budget where there are substantive savings to be found, probably, are Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

And, of course, all of the "true conservatives" have just played their part in dooming any effort there. I mean, even if (when?) we win a majority in Congress back in 2008, do you think that any future President (of either party) will be willing to make the effort that Bush made on the issue?