>>>... the Republican Party I see is the home of frauds, charlatans, fools, and outright criminals.With such an irresponible attitude, I see no good reason to further debate with you. You're nothing but a pessimist, a social misfit and a politcal malcontent.
But to answer your initial question and just for the record.
>>>Name two instances of President Bush doing something to actually shrink the size and scope of the Federal Government or reducing Federal Spending and I'll buy you a steak dinner.
Bush's Tight Budget Blueprint Appears to Contradict Rhetoric
A quick glance at the OMB budgetary estimates, show reductions in many government programs, from 2001 to 2002.
Agrilculture -$1.4 (in billions of dollars)
Commerce -$.4
Energy -$.5
Interior -$.4
Justice -$1.1
Labor -$.6
Transportation -$2.1
Corps of Engineers -$.6
EPA -$.5
FEMA -$.2
A T-Bone or porterhouse steak dinner, would be just fine with me. Thanks
I have to say you've made your point. If HUD and Education were not increased, Bush's budget could have been less than last year. This would have been something to cheer about from a fiscal point of view. Unfortunately, Bush kept is campaign promise to bloat the federal Education department. I was really hoping that was going to be a "read my lips" kind of campaign promise, but unfortunately for the taxpayer in this instance Bush is a man of his word.
However, I have to point out the Depts. of Education and Housing and Urban Development are two of the most bloated and worthless agencies. The Education Department proposed budget will be $54 billion and HUD's will be $32 billion in 2003. I don't have to tell you the damage these agencies do. Heck, Reagan ran on a platform to eliminate Education. Sadly, he wasn't able to do it, but Bush younger seems to have given in to the left wing education union.
While Bush is a significant improvement over Clinton and Gore, let me remind you that they set quite a low bar. Let us rally behind a modest 4% increase in federal spending as an improvement.