SO MANY MISSED OPPORTUNITIES ( MY TITLE-CLINTON MORE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE THAN BUSH ?)

TechCentralStation ^ | 6/22/05 | Veronique de Rugy

[LongsforReagan]

Very cool, I agree. Whats your take on the Club for Growth without Stephen Moore, didnt he leave?

[traviskicks]

It was a shame, I was worried that Pat Toomey would be influenced by the bloated, fat, government expanding, Republican party. However, they have pretty much kept the same line since he left and the 'service' they provide remains just as high quality and I haven't been able to detect any variation.

This is the latest letter I got from them (mass email).



Dear Travis,

June 28th is a critical date for Sharron Angle's campaign for Congress.

Sharron Angle
You may remember Sharron as the taxpayers' hero whom the Club for Growth PAC endorsed a few weeks ago for her 2006 race in Nevada's 2nd congressional district.

So far, over 1,000 Club for Growth members have donated to Sharron's campaign, but she needs more help if she's going to beat her tax-hiking opponent, Dawn Gibbons.

We hope you'll join them. Today if possible. Or by June 28. Your contribution will have more impact if it's received by then, in time for the next deadline for filing candidate reports with the Federal Election Commission. If Sharron shows a surprisingly large fundraising total, her campaign will be seen by the media as gaining rapid momentum. She will establish her strength as a candidate and her local fundraising will grow.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO SHARRON'S CAMPAIGN

Nothing frustrates me more than to see a Republican from a solidly Republican district vote with the Democrats, which is what Dawn Gibbons often did as a former state assemblywoman. Take a quick glance at her record in the Nevada Legislature and you'll know why we have to do everything we can to help ensure she is defeated. She:

Voted For A Record $788 Million Tax Hike On Nevadans (she joined every Democrat and only three other Republicans on this one)
Voted To Allow State Employees To Unionize (she was the only Republican in the entire Legislature to support this one)
Voted For A Taxpayer Subsidy For A Casino Art Collection
In contrast, Sharron has continued to show her independence. A few weeks ago, the Las Vegas Sun reported that "the Assembly voted 41-1 to give themselves and senators a retroactive increase in their travel and housing allowance." Sharron cast the lone dissenting vote.

In fact, that vote outcome is not unusual. As a recent newspaper article reported, "[Angle] said that often Assembly votes were "41-to-Angle" as she typically was the only person opposing higher spending."

Sharron has a stellar record of opposing higher taxes in the Legislature, in the courts, and on the ballot. She not only voted against that record tax hike that both Gibbons and the RINO Nevada governor supported, she led the opposition. When Nevada courts overturned the two-thirds vote requirement for the Nevada Legislature to raise taxes, Angle helped lead the legal battle to challenge the ruling in federal court. She has also recently announced plans to circulate a petition to qualify an initiative to limit Nevada property taxes.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO SHARRON'S CAMPAIGN

If you prefer not to donate online, you can call us with your credit card ready at (800) 687-2582 or you can write a check. Please make it payable to Angle For Congress and send it to:

Club for Growth
2001 L Street, NW, Ste 600
Washington, DC 20036

This is a safe Republican seat and the incumbent is retiring at the end of his current term. Who will fill it? A tax-hiking Republican or a tax-fighter? What you do can make the difference.

Best Regards,

Pat

[jammer]

I believe "small government" is inherent in the definition of "conservative." As I've said for many years, adjectives like Mr. Bush's slogan really translate to "not". As in "compassionate conservative" really means "not conservative."

[jammer]

AWB did expire which i see as a good thing.

That doesn't exonerate Bush--he stated that he would sign it if it passed.

[sasafras]

Bush is an eltist and a social and fiscal liberal. I have stopped fighting against the liberal demoncrats and now realize the enemy is within - Bush, McCain et.al. RINOs are the real enemy. They smile while the stab you in the back.

[Mr. Mojo]

Correct.

"Small-gov't conservative" is a redundancy, and "compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Maybe some of the pre-Andrew Jackson presidents of the early nineteenth century presidents did but I don't think it has happened since then.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Looked it up. Garfield was the last president who had no vetoes. Of course, he was president for only a few months. Before that, Fillmore was the earliest prez not to veto.

I suspect Dubya will eventually veto something, as a more or less meaningless gesture.

[moog]

"The last four years, total spending has risen 33 percent -- a figure larger than Clinton's two terms combined. "
That line alone hurt to read.

We are fighting a war too so I didn't expect things to shrink.

[moog]

Oops, I didn't read this post:)

[moog]

Looked it up. Garfield was the last president who had no vetoes. Of course, he was president for only a few months. Before that, Fillmore was the earliest prez not to veto.

How about William Henry Harrison?

[Austin Willard Wright]

The following presidents did not veto anything: John Adams, Jefferson, J.Q. Adams, Van Buren, W.H. Harrison, Taylor, Fillmore, and Garfield.

[moog]

Thanks. I thought that old Tippacanoe didn't. He was only in for a month or so.

[chudogg]

why is there so much whining about spending cuts for veterans, education,etc?

Because its exactly that whining. Both have seen tremendous increases.

What Republican politicians will never understand is that no matter how much you increase spending its still not enough for the whiners.

VA increases is justified, however

[DM1]

"That doesn't exonerate Bush--he stated that he would sign it if it passed."
oh right and the fact that if it was a Dem instead who would have campaigned hard for its passage would have been MUCH better in your view eh.
Politics is a tricky thing particularly for a nation's leader, most have to park themselves in the center whether leaning left or right. Now Bush new that the mommy's who are afraid of guns would have been scared adn the Dems would have portrayed him as a Columbine shooter had he went guns blazing for its removal. Instead he did the political move of paying lip service to one idea with a kind of wink nudge to keep gun types like myself fully onboard. Again not saying BUsh is perfect but on the other hand I am advocating fairness. Just look at everything before complete demonization or sainthood (pardon the metaphors but i believe you know what i am trying to say)
:)

[jammer]

Oh, crap. What a response. He said he would have signed it. He would have signed it. The fact that a politician's opponent is terrible doesn't make that politician's bad acts any less bad.

Can't you bots analyze an position on whether it's right or wrong, without saying that another's position is worse, so therefore my guy isn't so bad? They are BOTH wrong, and NEITHER is conservative.

[DM1]

"Can't you bots"
isn't that nice lol
i was civil did not resort to calling you names - you get frustrated with an argument and you go to 4 year old name calling lol - just like a liberal.
as i stated i do not think the man is perfect but i also do not think he deserves to be demonized either. Obviously you have not read all of my posts where i critized certain aspects and agreed with others of his policy. you may want to try reading everything before throwing labels around

[XEHRpa]

"The last four years, total spending has risen 33 percent -- a figure larger than Clinton's two terms combined. "

While I am likewise disappointed at the lack of fiscal discipline, let us not understand why Clinton could succeed as a fiscal conservative: because he balanced the budget on the backs of the Defense programs. Those cuts were supported by the governing majority consisting of the RATs and the fiscally conservative Republicans.

I also note (seeing your screen name) that Reagan, while a fiscal conservative at heart, was unable to bring into effect that conservatism, because the rats stymied cuts on domestic programs and defense needed to be bolstered to beat the commies.

[kabar]

A couple of things. Bush has had to deal with a war on terrorism, which involves huge, unanticipated expenditures. Second, the military was run down and needed to be built up. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, Clinton had the benefit of the peace dividend. Finally, Bush inherited a recession. Bush responded by providing income tax reductions, which decreased tax revenue in the short term. Clinton had for the most part, a GOP congress, which could limit his spending. Bush has not had such opposition.

The Clinton Years (FY1994-FY2001)

The Clinton administration ran deficits in each of its first four years and surpluses in each of the last four years. The largest deficit was $213 billion in FY1994 and the largest surplus was $219 billion in FY2000. The Clinton years paid down a net $14.2 billion of national debt and averaged a surplus of $1.78 billion.

During the Clinton years the number of non-defense government employees fell from 1,256,000 to 1,151,000 for a decrease of 105,000 employees.

The economy grew in each of the eight Clinton years by the following percentages, 4.0%, 2.7%, 3.6%, 4.4%, 4.2%, 4.9%, 3.8% and 0.3%, respectively. The average for those years is 3.5% GDP growth.

During the Clinton years the unemployment rate was 6.1%, 5.6%, 5.4%, 4.9%, 4.5%, 4.2%, 4.0% and 4.8%, respectively. Those eight years average an unemployment rate of 4.9%.

During the Clinton years, the inflation rate was 2.6%, 2.8%, 3.0%, 2.3%, 1.6%, 3.2%, 3.4% and 2.8%, respectively. Those eight years average an inflation rate of 2.7%.

During the Clinton years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 3.72%, 3.69%, 2.95%, 2.61%, 3.21%, 2.98%, 5.10% and 4.20% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 3.56%.

During the Reagan years, the growth rate of total Federal spending was 9.95%, 8.40%, 5.38%, 11.10%, 4.65%, 1.38%, 6.01% and 7.44% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 6.79%.

That said, Bush has been spending too much on education and prescription drugs, among other things.

[kabar]

Growth of Non-Defense Federal Spending

Kennedy 1962-1965
During the Kennedy years the percentage growth of Federal non-defense spending was 13.20%, 6.31%, 10.11%, and 6.01% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 8.91%.

Johnson 1966-1969
During the Johnson years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 13.04%, 12.60%, 11.81% and 5.13% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 10.65%.

Nixon 1970-1977
During the Nixon (and Ford) years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 12.67%, 15.22%, 15.38%, 11.60%, 12.38%, 29.37%, 14.79% and 10.56% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 15.24%.

Carter 1978-1981
During the Carter years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 13.55%, 9.44%, 17.87% and 13.96% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 13.70%.

Reagan 1982-1989

During the Reagan years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was and 7.70%, 6.71%, 4.34%, 11.08%, 3.37%, 0.70%, 7.20% and 8.52% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 6.20%.

Bush 1990-1993
During the Bush years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 13.54%, 10.19%, 3.07%, and 3.24% respectively. Those four years average a growth rate of 7.51%.

Clinton 1994-2001
During the Clinton years the percentage growth of federal non-defense spending was 5.53%, 5.38%, 4.10%, 2.78%, 4.01%, 3.10%, 4.71% and 4.09% respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 4.21%.
Conclusion
For the twenty years of Republican submitted budgets the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 10.08%.

For the twenty years of Democratic submitted budgets the average growth rate of Federal non-defense spending was 8.34%. Federal non-defense spending was 8.34%.