Party of smaller government, my ass
Thanks to Republican control, the budget has gone up 23.7%, the fastest pace in a decade.
That and support for the assault weapons ban, the largest expansion of government ever, biggest deficits ever, campaign finance reform, free speech zones, Patriot 1 & 2, and a host of other reasons are why I can’t support the Republicans.
They did, however, get Iraq and tax cuts right.
Update: Oh yeah, and Ashcroft.
Update2: Heh!
January 6th, 2004 at 12:09 pm
Attacking the Republicans on the budget is a fair point; attacking them on campaign finance “reform” and the Ugly Gun Ban is not. Few Republicans voted for either bill – and that’s despite the fact that the 1994 definition of “Republican” included none other than James Jeffords. If the Republicans – RINOs and all – had controlled either house of Congress in 1994, there would be no federal AW ban today. Since they control both houses today, there probably won’t be one by this time next year. What more do you want?
And then there’s foreign policy and judicial appointments, which are the principal reasons why I care if Bush is or isn’t re-elected. Right now, four out of nine Justices think the Tenth Amendment means absolutely nothing, and five out of nine feel the same way about the First and the Fourteenth. I don’t know if we can trust Bush to fix that, but I do know we can trust any of the nine Democrat candidates not to.
January 6th, 2004 at 3:57 pm
They did, however, get Iraq and tax cuts right.
Explain this to me…a war that’s cost us something like over $150 billion and tax cuts..all of which conspires to raise the deficit, which ultimately means that we have to pay the interest on the debt (not to mention the interest on the interest), which means that in the future taxes will have to be raised. How are these in tandem good.
January 6th, 2004 at 4:03 pm
Uhm debt relates mostly to bond sales and not necessarily deficit. Certain non cash items affect the financial position of the government without impacting cash flow.
In terms of how they are good: liberating folks is good; giving me back some cash is good.
January 6th, 2004 at 11:33 pm
Giving you back some cash is good for you. It’s not necessarily good for the country. You want to cut taxes, fine. Tell me exactly where you’re going to cut spending to allow you to afford that, make the numbers jive, make those spending cuts, and THEN cut taxes.
January 7th, 2004 at 2:01 am
SayUncle:
You completely dodged my question..I can assure you that the deficits this year aren’t completely accounting tricks..and that we will have to pay real cash on the debt that they create.
yes, paying less taxes is good for you and attacking Iraq is good in your books, but borrowing money is bad. And it means that we will have less flexibility in the future on taxes and spending (including the military ones)
January 7th, 2004 at 9:03 am
Deficits don’t necessarily lead to debt, manish. Debt requires a willful act of borrowing/lending. A person must purchase bonds (which they do if the government is running a surplus or deficit) or the government must take out a loan. Deficits don’t in and of themselves mysteriously become debt.
January 7th, 2004 at 1:57 pm
so what you’re saying is that debt and deficit are completely unrelated concepts?
January 7th, 2004 at 2:01 pm
No. I said they are not necessarily related. I think it’s not unreasonable to conclude based on the national debt number and associated interest that the government assumes debt whether it needs to or not.
January 8th, 2004 at 1:50 pm
Uncle:
I think it’s not unreasonable to conclude based on the national debt number and associated interest that the government assumes debt whether it needs to or not.
Or, in other words, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.