BUSH AMONG BIGGEST SPENDING PRESIDENTS

ohhh, he's so conservative...if conservative is big government and record budgets and trade deficits and a wide open border and open talk of martial law and scrapping the Constitution to keep us safe from the terrorists who hate freedom...then yes, he's incredibly conservative...

BUSH AMONG BIGGEST SPENDING PRESIDENTS


Chuck Baldwin | 14 Oct 2005





After nearly five years in office, the record is clear: President George W. Bush ranks among the biggest spending presidents in American history! With such a record, no person can honestly categorize G.W. Bush as a fiscal conservative. By comparison, Dubya's spending habits make Bill Clinton look like a conservative!

Writing for the Financial Times (7/15/05), Jim Cooper stated, "President George W. Bush has failed to impose discipline on congressional spending. His Republican Congress has, unsurprisingly, become headstrong and spendthrift as a result."

Cooper continued by saying, "Mr. Bush is the first US president since James Garfield in 1881 to accept every bill that Congress sends him as if it were perfect. And Garfield only served six months in office."

Again, Cooper wrote, "Most of the strong presidents in American history vetoed dozens, sometimes hundreds, of bills. Mr. Bush has vetoed none."

Beyond that, according to Stephen Slivinski of the libertarian Cato Institute, "[President] Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Mr. Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years." However, the story is even worse than that.

Jim Cooper notes that "Not only has Mr. Bush failed to veto any legislation, he has not rescinded any outlays. This lesser-known power has been used by every president since Richard Nixon except, again, for George W. Bush. Rescissions allow presidents to cut any spending programmes within larger bills as long as simple majorities in both Houses of Congress agree.

"Although this White House pretends it is powerless, former president Bill Clinton sought to rescind 163 spending items totaling $6.6 billion, and won 111 from a divided Congress, saving $3.6 billion. Mr. Bush's father tried to rescind 169 items totaling $13.3 billion, winning 34 from a divided Congress, saving $2.3 billion. The champion is Ronald Reagan, who tried to cut 602 spending items costing $43.4 billion and won 214, again from a divided Congress, thus saving $15.6 billion."



Cooper summarized by saying, "Mr. Bush has rescinded no programmes, saving no dollars, despite complete Republican control of Congress. The fiscal consequences of one-party government are dire. Today, there is no adult supervision of Congress. No wonder congressional 'earmarks'-pork-barrel spending in a member's own state or district-have multiplied to almost $24 billion annually. Mr. Bush is aiding and abetting the most expensive political logrolling in American history."



There can now be no argument on the subject. Anyone attempting to claim that G.W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress believe in limiting government spending is pixilated! George Bush consumes tax dollars the way he once consumed booze! And, on the whole, his Republican buddies in Congress are perhaps even bigger spending sops than he is! They don't belong in Washington; they belong in SA (Spenders Anonymous).

As I have said before, I am a conservative, I favor small government, low taxes, a stay out of fucking countries business foriegn policy, a stay out of peoples business social policy, but those who would claim the name of "conservative" support exactly the opposite. They want to invade the world. invade your bedroom, invade every fucking thing in site until you lick their boots. Unfortunately, there are some on this site who were born to lick boots, you should not hate them, it is what they were born to be.

you're a real conservative...not a big government tyranny neo-con...

i don't know how people who support lord bush can claim to be conservative...because george dubya bush is nowhere near conservative...

Figure I read was, cost of government is 33 % higher under bush, wonder how much of that 33 % went to his oil buddies and haliburton? or how much more they have made since he took over.