Shocking!

From today's Washington Post:

The budget Bush is to propose on Monday will say that the new Medicare law, which sets in motion the largest expansion of the program in its history, will require $534 billion in the next decade, $134 billion more than the president and lawmakers said, according to congressional and administration sources.

Read on.

Comments

[Dan]

You can spend like a drunken sailor and still be a conservative, as long as you're a straight drunken sailor who believes in Jesus and owns a gun! 🙂

Thus the term "social conservative". There's nothing unusual about being both pro-big-government and anti-cultural-change. That combination describes many European nations (France and Ireland, for example).

"Conservative" and "liberal" are relatively meaningless, anyway. Once upon a time, the belief that people have a right to self-defense -- the "guns" you love to sneer at, presumably because you'd just feel safer knowing that the only Americans with guns worked for George Bush -- was considered a fundamentally liberal belief. I still consider it one; the belief that human rights should be secondary to the desires of the state strikes me as a conservative one.

[thoreau]

I have nothing against guns. My only point was that to many in the GOP, as long as you have nothing against guns you are still a conservative, never mind the massive spending...

[Andrew]

I wonder whether the administration will say "Congress lied to me!" or vice versa. I suppose to some extent, these things ARE difficult to predict (and the latest projection may not be accurate either).

All of the domestic spending added during the 80's is still with us. Since then: taxes have been raised (a little); the military was trimmed (a bit more); new spending slowed (for a while); the economy grew (a lot). And the books balanced over the course of the 90's-- I repeat, ALL of the new spending added in the 80's is still with us. But Thoreau thinks it is a big deal that the books showed a balance during the 90's, he believes that this was because a Democrat was in the White House (Bush I would have behaved differently?) and thinks the solution is to get another one...cause it is so important to have that balance thing!

[Andy D.]

Andrew, it's not about having balance, it's about having antipathy.

[Drew]

The debate about whether were better off with a Democrat or Republican in the white house is pointless. In either case spending will go through the roof, and liberties will disappear. Of course I'm voting a strictly libertarian ticket and will try to convince as many people as I can to do the same. But I don't have much hope that it'll make a difference. I'm starting to believe that we'll become a police state like in the movie Brazil. The people seem to want it. Or we'll have violent revolution.

[Rick Barton]

From the W.P. article
I just don't think the bill is going to be repealed or changed radically," one Senate GOP aide said.

Why in the Hell not? The demographics make this "entitlement" a real prosperity crusher. We need to eliminate the government interference from the whole drug delivery process that causes drug prices to exceed a market price. Instead, with this disaster, we are institutionalizing the higher prices.

Political Truths:

1. Bush is an archenemy of limited government.

2. The GOP congress people, even in yielding to Bush's big government agenda, vote to spend way less money than their Dem. counter parts: NTU.org

What we might do:

Tell the GOP candidates for congress, that if they want our votes, we expect real cuts in spending, instead of these hyperbolic increases. And, we should tell them that we will never vote for Bush, and explain why. The small number of Republicans in congress who vote to spend amounts that approximate what the Dems. vote for,(RINOs) should not get our votes in the elections either.

[Andrew Lynch]

Rick, why on Earth would anyone vote for a Republican?

[Rick Barton]

Andrew Lynch,

Because, some of the Republicans in congress aren't bad, let alone hideous, like Bush. Now; they have been better in the past but the folks in congress who get an "A" rating from the NTU for smaller spending are all Republicans: NTU.org The Dems. are far worse.

There are some GOP state governors who seem to be for more limited government, such as Colorado's, and there are some who suck.....tax dollars away from their rightful owners voraciously, such as Ohio's.

It seems to me that there are times when it's best to vote for the Libertarian candidate and other times when it makes more sense to support the GOP candidate...

[Great Shocked One]

I'm Shocked!

[StMack]

Do Ted kenedy and the Democrats still think it's not enough?

[rst]

Never in my life did I think that the Republicans would ruin their own classically component conservatism to such a heinous degree as they have in these past three years. It seems as though they think that clinging to these silly moral notions about gays and drugs and Jesus makes them real conservatives.

[thoreau]

Don't forget guns and the war in Iraq.

You can spend like a drunken sailor and still be a conservative, as long as you're a straight drunken sailor who believes in Jesus and owns a gun! 🙂

[Jack]

I'm just glad we have that noble conservative George W. Bush in charge. If a Democrat was president spending might be out of control!

[thoreau]

Jack-

Tell me about it. Man, if you think the Congressional GOP is acquiescent now, imagine what they'd be like if a Democrat were in the White House. They'd probably give him everything he wants and then some. Worse yet, he'd probably propose some intrusive "security" law, and the GOP would roll over and pass it.

Sure glad we have a Republican in the White House!

[Jean Bart]

Dan,

"Thus the term 'social conservative.' There's nothing unusual about being both pro-big-government and anti-cultural-change. That combination describes many European nations (France and Ireland, for example)."

France has civil unions and we don't jail or fine people for possessing dildos or smoking in their offices; unlike in the U.S. that is. Yes, we hate cultural change so much! 🙂 Indeed, our President has not as yet even threatened to create a constitutional amendment to outlaw homosexuals getting married! I have to admit that yours is one of the most blatantly stupid comments I have ever come across here.

[Andrew Lynch]

Jean Bart, you always make me laugh and I'm not being sarcastic.

Rick Barton, point taken. Is there no room for libertarians (even party-registered ones) to vote for Democrats?