Reagan advocated smaller government and made good on that promise by busting the leech-like unions, but he spent incredibly outrageous amounts of money for military research, clandestine operations in Nicaragua, and direct military interventions in Grenada, Libya, and Lebanon.
George Bush wants smaller government, but due to events none of us could have foreseen the government's power increased with the Department of Homeland Security being formed and the U.S.A PATRIOT Act (which don't get me wrong I support) being drafted soon after the devastating 9/11 attacks. His plan to reform the dying Social Security System flopped because it was too far ahead of many people's ideals (a temporary bubble of wealth that would soon burst mattered more to big-government liberals obviously) then they could worry about at the time. He hasn't vetoed a single spending bill yet, largely because of Iraq and Hurricane Katrina, but seems overall disillusioned on where to cut programs that aren't working and spending that isn't necessary.
I don't think of Bush as a big liberal spender like people think he is, I think he is merely reacting to the catastrophes which have struck our nation since 9/11 and has tried to keep the economy going after our former president Clinton had rode the Dot Com Boom to re-election and made no economic plans after that to prevent a major downslump. Bush cut taxes and our economy is in fine shape, despite what Newsweek and the New York Times claim.
Bush seems to want to lower spending, and I think he is, but it's still at an unbelieveable level. It just seems like everything the government does today costs billions more than it used to. I don't see many politicians standing up for real conservative economics anymore, I see liberal economics infecting Congress to the point where an unlikely veto from Bush wouldn't make any difference at all.
What do you think?
The Goldwater Doctrine:
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size.
I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom.
My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them.
It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden.
I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible.
And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
- Former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), "The Conscience of a Conservative"
Best regards,