If he sticks with it, he will be able to say he is turning spending around and still be protected from “He is starving our children” hatespeech.

Posted by: jones at January 23, 2004 03:14 PM

HE wont be protected. It will be said that he’s cut taxes on the rich and cut spending on the poor. But they will say that no matter what he does. This budget is DOA, btw. Republicans in Congress arent going to let their pork go by the wayside any more than democrats will.

Posted by: mark buehner at January 23, 2004 03:55 PM

Yes, after plowing your car into the schoolbus and fist fighting with the cops after they arrive on the scene, it might be time to renounce drinking.

Bush’s spending record makes Clinton look like Silent Cal. He hasn’t seen an appropriation, a wacky-ass museum or corporate handout he didn’t like. They should have given Ronnie the line-item veto back when he asked for it. These last few budgets have been pork-tacular.

We need to frame the real debate correctly. The problems our government faces are not due to being underfunded. Two trillion a year is ridiculous. There aren’t enough pockets in the kingdom to pick to cover this spending. I’d cap it at Zero for starters. It’s not that they don’t tax enough - THEY SPEND TOO MUCH. PERIOD.

Cato publishes a handbook every year for Congress that details all the necessary, sane and safe cuts that can be made when republican and democratic pork-masters are brought to justice. What the federal govenment can do and legally spend money on are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. If they were to go the Ron Paul route tomorrow, that might result in a 2005 budget of, say $950 billion.

Sounds good to me.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at January 23, 2004 04:09 PM

torpedo_eight is right, but it simply doesn’t matter if the citizenry doesn’t care and, unfortunately, the citizenry doesn’t care.

If incumbents thought they would be voted out of office for their drunken orgy of spending, they would spend our money wisely. The American public has shown no interest in holding them accountable, regardless of party.

Posted by: U.S. Cavalry at January 23, 2004 05:33 PM

They should have given Ronnie the line-item veto back when he asked for it. These last few budgets have been pork-tacular.

The sad thing is not that Bush didn’t have the line item veto. The sad thing is that he probably wouldn’t have used it.

Posted by: lewy14 at January 23, 2004 05:39 PM

Mark,

I agree they will say those things. They are drawn to it like a moth to flame. It is all they have.

However, they will look just like our own Pass when they say it and a chart is tossed up showing spending under Bush.

I just hope that term two gives him better footing to spend less. If he gets it.

And T-8. Right on.

Bush is like getting old. It really seems to suck until you consider the options.

Posted by: jones at January 23, 2004 06:06 PM

Now what they need to do is fully fund the IRS and close up some loop holes. Presto- 300Billion added a year!

Posted by: Blehh... at January 23, 2004 07:51 PM

His Name is President Bush, not Mr. Bush. If you want to appear unbiased, please follow the etiquet. Thank you.

Posted by: Andrew Johnson at January 25, 2004 11:05 PM

His name is George W. Bush. His title is president. Please don’t capitalize the “Name” - you conservative morons won’t beatify him until after he leaves office next year I trust.

Posted by: cracker49 at March 24, 2004 09:57 PM