Go left: Arnie tells US Republicans

The President doesn't write budgets. Congress writes budgets.

All the President can do is encourage Congress to keep the growth in spending under control and if the budget is out of line he can veto it.

President Bush has never vetoed anything. If you remember back to the 2000 campaign he promised to not be an obstructionist to Congress. Like it or not that is one of the campaign promises that got him elected. And like it or not he has kept that promise.

Since both Congress and the President are accountable to us (the voters) and since for the last 6 years or so the overwhelming majority of voters seem unconcerned with 7-10% increases in the rate of growth of the federal budget it is unrealistic to expect anyone in government, including Bush, to vote against these increases. To do so would get them kicked out of office at the first opportunity.

Talk is cheap, including this, so what are we (the people who care about fiscal responsibility) going to do about getting the federal budget back in line? I maintain that it is pointless to complain among ourselves about how we're being betrayed by our own allies in government when people like us, who vote for fiscal responsibility are definitely in the minority on election day. The only thing that will change this trend is to start at the grassroots level and start convincing people we know to actually nominate and support candidates in primaries who are solid supply-siders and to vote for them and keep supporting them when they are in office.

We did have federal spending limits for a few years and they worked very well. They were enacted as part of the Republican "takeover" in '94 when Newt Gingrich was speaker, but unfortunately Newt was tossed overboard when voter support dried up because Republicans didn't want to look mean spirited. If he and the other fiscally responsible legislators had gotten more consistent support from us we would still have spending limits, and a lot less to gripe about. Some ammo to use to convince people: 1)"Free to Choose" by Milton and Rose Friedmanhttp://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/friedman.html 2)Anything by Thomas Sowell http://www.tsowell.com/ 3)The Rush Limbaugh radio program http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/

This is better. : ^ )

1)"Free to Choose" by Milton and Rose Friedman

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/friedman.html

2)Anything by Thomas Sowell

http://www.tsowell.com/

3)The Rush Limbaugh radio program

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/

Hey! We California FReepers wouldn't be happy with that.

BTW, how's things under Governor Rendell these days? ;O)

Alright, I guess I deserved that Rendell comment. We need CA freepers like you to take back the soul of your state. That would be a more favorable outcome.

Go F--- yourself, Governor!

I second that motion. All those in favor say 'yea', all those against say 'nay'.....

When did the president promise not to veto legislation? That is the strangest rationalization I have ever seen for the most pro-big government president since LBJ.

Also, you are forgetting the Dubya (not Congress!) proposed the biggest budget busting bill of all, the Medicare bill. In fact, Congress was reluctant to approve the bill and would not have done so had Bush not strong arm tactics to pressure otherwise principled Republicans to vote for it. Your rationalization and excuse for Bush's manifold big government sins doesn't wash.....and don't even get me started on his statist educaton, farm, trade, and transportation policies!

" Bush's manifold big government sins doesn't wash.....and don't even get me started on his statist educaton, farm, trade, and transportation policies! "

Why? What happens if I get you started? Go ahead and tell me about "his statist educaton, farm, trade, and transportation policies!"

But please, after you tell me all about them, then tell me all about how much better the government would be if the people you voted for in the last election had won. Be specific. Name names and describe their platforms in detail.

Okay, I know you would prefer unconditional forgiveness, but the best I can offer at this point is conditional forgiveness. I believe I was the first to suggest that Tom would have made a great candidate for Lt. Governor, so I'm asking you to donate to his campaign. Then I'll forgive...

http://www.tommcclintock.com/

Would it have been better? Who knows? We know that Clinton had a better record than Dubya on the big government question. Heck, just about any president since LBJ has had a better record.

Look: you are obviously a yellow dog Bush Republican and there is no persuading you. I pointed out, for example, that Dubya used strong arm tactics to prod Congress to endorse the greatest expansion of the welfare state (Medicare presciptions) and you did not bother to respond even though this fact completely contradicts your previous "blame Congress, excuse Dubya" mantra.

You misunderstand the gist of my whining. : ^ ]

I blame congress AND Bush. I, like you, think the over budget spending is irresponsible and outrageous and should be stopped NOW. But the focus of my attention is on the people who are demanding that the government give them things "for free". That is the majority of voters and that is who our elected government officials (Republican, Democrat, and Bush) listen to. Until that reality changes, everything else is irrelevant.

I think you and I are of the same mind as to what the problem is, just maybe working at the solution from opposite ends.

I'm sorry I misunderstood. I am still confused, however, about your solution. What is it?

Let me note that the majority of voters did not "demand" the biggest increase in big government: the Medicare bill. Bush had to strong-arm the Congress to pass it by a singel vote. I agree that public opinion is misguided but Bush is not a prisoner of public opinion. He has a Repubican majority. If he wants to promote smaller government, he has the power to do it. Thus, when he wants to Bush does not "listen to" public opinion.

The majority, btw, think the Iraq war was a mistake. While I do too, Bush was perfectly able to ignore public opinion and set his own course. Why can't he on domestic issues? I submit that he sincerely believes in bigger government and would promote that goal even if the majority felt otherwise.

I don't think there is a solution, if that is defined as being able to step back and say "Look, the days of Big Government are over for good, everybody agrees with us." To me it's just a matter of pulling for supply side economics while their side keeps pulling for socialist policies, and we hope the center keeps moving toward our side even though sometimes we might lose a little ground.

I think this will answer your bigger question, though. Why aren't I as upset with Bush and the other Republicans as you are when they clearly are enacting policy that I strongly disagree with?
It's because I'm just making a judgment call that the best use of my time and effort is to try to change opinions at the level where our government is ultimately accountable and that is individual voters. There are already many others who are voicing their displeasure at the politicians directly.
BTW, looking back I was kind of rude to you in a few replies and I shouldn't have been, especially considering I'm unwilling to be as rude to Bush. : ^ ) Sorry.