[Rhodes22-list] Your Tax Dollars At Work

Bill Effros bill at effros.com
Mon Sep 19 10:29:12 EDT 2005


Thanks, Brad,

I think we're all sending around the same stuff.

I wonder what we're going to do about it.

Bill Effros

brad haslett wrote:

>Rummy,
>
>I've had problems with W's spending habits from the
>get-go, this is nothing new.  The problem is that
>EVERY politician from every stripe wants to fund their
>own pet projects at the other guys expense.  Why don't
>we do an entire review and eliminate some programs
>wholesale, say farm subsidies, and cut all the others
>by 10% across the board.  The Congress is responsible
>for the spending, the President has the veto.  W, are
>you listening?  You have the VETO, USE IT!!
>
>Here is an article that sums up my feelings quite
>nicely.  We'll revisit this later, I'm off to work to
>pay my tax bill.
>
>Brad
>
>--------------------------
>
>DELAYED SUCCESS 
>By RYAN SAGER 
>
>DID House Majority Leader Tom DeLay hear the rumor
>about the educators who wanted to replace "failure" on
>report cards with the sunnier "delayed success"? It
>would explain his declaration Tuesday that the
>Republican Party is winning an "ongoing victory"
>against wasteful government spending. 
>
>As President Bush prepares to spend his way out of the
>post-Katrina political muck, there's more than a
>little reason to snicker at DeLay's linguistic
>gymnastics. 
>
>Indeed, Katrina's aftermath may trigger a real split
>between the big spenders who now control the GOP and
>the small-government conservatives who consider
>themselves its conscience. Republican dissidents are
>launching an all-out assault on the White House and
>GOP leaders in Congress over the Bush-era explosion in
>spending. 
>
>"It is inexcusable for the White House and Congress to
>not even make the effort to find at least some offsets
>to this new spending," Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said
>Friday, responding to Bush's speech in New Orleans the
>night before, where the president pledged spending
>that is expected to exceed $200 billion in one year --
>more than the cost of the entire Iraq war and
>reconstruction so far. 
>
>"We're going to end up with the highest deficit,
>probably, in the history of this country," Sen. John
>McCain said. 
>
>Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a member of the Republican
>Study Committee (a group of more than 100 GOP House
>members committed to small government), took an even
>harder line when I talked to him Thursday: "These are
>difficult times, and there are difficult choices to
>make, but that's what statesmen do," he said, blasting
>Bush for a lack of "presidential leadership." 
>
>"Ultimately, it's the Congress that controls the
>purse," Flake said. "But it certainly would be made
>easier if he vetoed a bill." 
>
>When Newt Gingrich led the GOP takeover of Congress in
>1994, his Contract With America railed against
>"government that is too big, too intrusive, and too
>easy with the public's money." Now conservatives like
>Flake worry that the party's lost the mantle of small
>government. 
>
>In fact, it's a virtual certainty. Bush has midwived
>the largest expansion of the federal government since
>the Great Society. His No Child Left Behind law
>doubled federal spending on education (to no
>measurable good). His new Medicare benefits are
>expected to cost some $1.2 trillion over 10 years. 
>
>Congress has been no better. Look at
>appropriations-bill earmarks -- pork projects. When
>Democrats last held Congress, there were some 4,000 of
>these annually. Under the Republicans, it's
>skyrocketed to 15,000 a year. And more than 80 percent
>of the pork boom came on Bush's watch. 
>
>It's shameful: Conservatives in Congress now compare
>Bush -- unfavorably -- to Bill Clinton. Staffers point
>out that when disaster triggered unanticipated
>spending on Clinton's watch, that government-loving
>liberal actually asked Americans to make some
>tradeoffs. 
>
>After the 1994 Los Angeles earthquake, Clinton asked
>for more than $3 billion to offset the new costs. The
>Democratic Congress gave it to him. 
>
>After the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton asked
>for more than $1 billion in cuts. The newly Republican
>Congress insisted on more than $15 billion in offsets.
>(Let's hear it for divided government!) 
>
>Since taking office, Bush has yet to ask for a single
>offset to disaster-related spending. 
>
>The point of the debate among the Republicans isn't
>about whether to spend the money needed to rebuild
>after Katrina -- that's a given. The question is
>whether, even under the most extreme of circumstances,
>they can make even the most minor of cuts to the size
>of government. 
>
>In a press conference Friday afternoon, Bush mentioned
>for the first time the possibility of "cutting
>unnecessary spending" as a way to pay for Katrina
>cleanup. But he also said the effort will "cost
>whatever it's going to cost"; his economic advisers
>told people to prepare to watch the deficit swell. 
>
>If Republicans can't cut now, they can't cut ever.
>They'll be just what their critics claim: A party that
>rode into office promising Americans more freedom and
>lower taxes, but now simply uses its power to hold
>onto power. 
>
>Republican victory against big government, in other
>words, may be delayed indefinitely. 
>
>
>rsager at nypost.com
>
>
> 
>
>
>--- R22RumRunner at aol.com wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Brad,
>>Perhaps you should read what you wrote. I think
>>you'll understand why we're  
>>just now beginning to bash W.
>> 
>>Rummy
>>__________________________________________________
>>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
>>www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>  
>


More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list