pinions of buddy don: gop – the party of big gummint

thisn kin be splaind short n sweet: the grand ole party is the party of big gummint, not them dimcrats. taint fer lack of trine, but ye caint grow yer gummint so big ifn ye half to put in all the costs, witch them dimcrats seems to thank ye half to evaluwait a budget when its gut everthang in it. them publicans aint held to that standurd.

corse, the budget mr bush put out yesterdy is big, no doubt bout that. even ifn mr cheney sez tiz a tight budget, tiz still big:

Bush's $2.57-trillion budget for 2006, if approved by Congress, would be more than a third bigger than the 2001 budget he inherited four years ago. It is a monument to how much Republicans' guiding fiscal philosophy has changed over the 10 years since the GOP's Contract With America called for a balanced budget and abolition of entire Cabinet agencies.
No longer are Republicans arguing with Democrats about whether government should be big or small. Instead, they are at odds over what kind of big government the U.S. should have.

taint only how they lack growin the gummint by such increases in spendin, but they lack to ignore thar own facks:

The first clue to the truth lies in a measure of the federal deficit this crowd adores obscuring but is forced by law to disclose. It's found only in a large table buried in the budget documents and estimates the government's operating red ink -- the amount by which spending exceeds revenue from income taxes and other fees. Last year it was far above the deficit figure that that typically makes its way into headlines -- $567 billion, compared with the "official" figure of $412 billion.

but that aint all thar hidin frum how bad they dun let thangs git. ye also gut to figger in the cost of the war in iraq, witch that dint make the budget even tho it runs about $5 billion a week. in fack, ye mite could thank thar leavin more out than thar puttin in. heres the list of thangs they dont count:

1. how much more the deficit is ifn ye cunsidder the fack that thar spendin all the soshul securty surplus, making it seem lack tiz only $427 billion in sted of whut tiz, witch as ye jes read is $567 billion.
2. it dont count the cost of the war in iraq, witch thats good fer at lease a nuther $80 billion fer one year
3. they dont count whut twood cost to make thar tax cuts permanent, witch that'll run em $100 billion this decade n a nuther $1.9 trillion next decade.
4. they ignore the cost of fixin the alternativ minimum tax, witch that kin run ye near $800 billion jes by 2015
5. they dont count the cost of changin soshul securty, witch they dun add mitted twont fix nuthin bout the ongoing problems with it n wood mean twood cost a lot more, at least the $758 billion cheney mentchuned in his interview with fox news n trillions after that!

by the way, them 'trillions after that' gits to addin up purty quick. lets do a lil math on it:

cost of changin soshul securty = $758 to 2015 + up to $2 trillions to 2025 + a nuther cuple trillions each decade till 2052

witch ifn ye add all that up, ye git into near $10 trillion jes in time to save soshul securty frum bein able to pay only 80% of its obligayshuns, witch that wood be whar we wuz ifn we dint put a nuther exter dime into it.

thays a nuther cost dint nobidy mentchun so far, witch thats the cost of the huge new gummint bureacrassy yer a'gone need to run the new gummint vershun of the program thats dun wurked fine fer 70 years.

once ye gut that in place, ye gut ye a much bigger gummint, the kind only publicans kin luv. makes me wish fer the good ole days of the contract with america, witch it started off with the 'fiscal responsibility act,' a plan fer a amendment to the constitushun to force a balanced budget. seems lack them days is gone fer good.

the punch line fer this joke on us all is how them publicans lacks to point at the failure of ronald raygun to keep his deficits under cuntrol as a reason fer why they dont half to wurry bout em no more. so one failure eggscuzes a nuthern.