wandering hillbilly

pinions of buddy don:
bizarro news -- publicans under bush are the big spenders

whutever happend to the idee of small gummint? wuznt that whut the publicans been rantin about all my life? so did we all git tellyported up to bizarro world?

"Want to curb spending? Then replace George Bush with a democrat. This is not entirely a joke. With Republicans in control of the White House and Congress since 2000--except for an interlude in 2001-2002 when Democrats held the Senate--spending has risen at roughly three times the rate of the 1990s when Democrat Bill Clinton was president. Back then, congressional Republicans stymied Democratic spending. Now, Republicans go along with Bush's spending initiatives, while he accedes to theirs. That's the way a governing majority operates." -- Fred Barnes, Hey Big Spenders, Weekly Standard.

ye dont speck the wall street journal to pick on inny publicans on its editorill page, but here ye go:

"Does anyone else notice a theme here?" Since taking office, Bush has been on a spending spree. On his watch, federal expenditures have increased by 23.7 percent; he hasn't vetored a single spending request in three years. ... Today, public spending per person is actually higher than it was under Bill Clinton. If Bubba were in charge, "Republicans would be shouting from the rooftops." -- Editorial, The Wall Street Journal (via The Week)

frum an aritcull name of "U.S. Government Spending Under Bush Is Highest Since World War II" by Gail Russell Chaddock, furst published in The Christian Science Monitor, reposted on Reclaim Democracy.org

Much of the $2.2 trillion that Washington is expected to spend in fiscal year 2004 is for mandatory spending on Social Security and Medicare. But so-called discretionary spending has also increased some 22 percent during the Bush presidency, from $734 billion in 2002 to $873 billion in 2004.

The Concord Coalition, a bipartisan watchdog, calls this the "most irresponsible year ever."

Biggest spending years
Federal spending is now at a level surpassed only during World War II, after running about $18,000 per year in the 1990s.

Spending per household
1. 1944 $26,445
2. 1945 $25,572
3. 1943 $23,370
4. 2003 $20,399
Source: Heritage Foundation (in 2003 dollars)

corse the cato institute has dun caught on toot n is a'ritin bout it. this heres frum a articull name of "On Spending, Bush Is No Reagan":

George W. Bush is increasingly being compared to Ronald Reagan. It's true that like Bush, Reagan came to Washington with an ambitious plan to cut taxes across-the-board and increase defense spending while containing federal spending. And Reagan, indeed, lightened the tax burden on the American people and oversaw a massive increase in defense spending. Thus, given Bush's recent push for more pro-growth tax cuts combined with increased defense spending for the war on terrorism, the analogy is tempting.

But at this stage in his presidency, Bush's dismal record on spending when measured against Reagan's nullifies that temptation. Better yet, in light of Bush's spending it looks like it would be more accurate to compare him to Jimmy Carter than to Ronald Reagan.

Let's look at the facts. Compared to the same point in Reagan's first term, not only is Bush a bigger spender than Reagan, he's a big spender in his own right. Adjusted for inflation, total spending under Bush's watch will have increased by 14 percent as opposed to 7 percent under Reagan. But more indicative of Bush's spending problem is the run-up in discretionary spending under his watch. Discretionary spending represents funds for programs that Congress has to allocate for on an annual basis and it is the type of spending that the president has the most influence over.

Now, it is true that a sizable portion of this discretionary spending goes toward national defense. Bush will have overseen a 21 percent increase for national defense -- pretty much equal to Reagan. However, the major difference between the two men is discretionary spending not related to national defense. Whereas Reagan was able to reduce non-defense discretionary outlays by 14 percent, Bush will have overseen a rise of 18 percent -- a whopping 32 percent difference between the two men.

corse whut matters aint stuff lack spendin but whuther the presdint delivers on parshul birth aborshun or preeches on abstinunts or tries to make it so the gummint kin hep churches or appoints conservativ judges n folk lack john ashcroft n leckchurs everbidy bout not leavin children behin even ifn he cant pay to brang em along on a counta thars more importunt thangs to spend yer money on, lack gas frum halliburton subsidiaries in iraq.