Fiscal Discipline Seven Years Too Late
Written by Sean on October 16th, 2007President Bush is now threatening to veto bloated Democrat appropriations bills if they exceed the President’s spending limits. While I’m glad to see that the President has decided to put some sort of limit on spending, I can’t help but think both that it’s not enough and that he should’ve done this starting in 2001.
The Republican Revolution was about changing the size and scope of government. Sadly, the Party collectively checked that theme at the Beltway and continued spending like drunken sailor predecessors. Having failed miserably to follow through on the promises, we got clobbered last year and will probably lose even more seats and the White House next year.
Whether the President will actually follow through remains to be seen. Perhaps the bigger question is whether it matters. The Party of small government has been anything but, and any feeble attempts at fiscal responsibility that the President attempts now are like using gum to patch up a lead in a dam. Don’t get me wrong, this combined with his S-CHIP veto are better than complete surrender for the remainder of the term, but they’re also too little too late.
16
PM
Small government. Fiscal responsibility. Less government interference.
Are those catchy slogan, or are they a standing joke?
Vote for the Anarchist Paul—he will cut the government down to size!!
And given how much it has grown, Paul may need two terms to get it to pre-WWII levels!!
16
PM
Once again, SaveTheGOP writers miss the fact that Democrats are proposing hundreds of billions of dollars in spending far above proposals from the Republican side of the aisle. Much of the current spending levels are due to the fact that we’re at war.
This site would be more appropriately titled “TrashTheGOP.”
16
PM
Joseph,
Once again, you miss the fact that better than the Democrats is not worth fighting for. There has to be a higher standard.
16
PM
Wrong. Sean, what happened last time the Democrats held both the White House and the majority in the Congress?
Answer: We got Hillarycare. Is that your higher standard?
16
PM
Actually HillaryCare never got off the ground because of the backlash against it… much like the backlash against Bush, Kennedy, and McCain’s attempt to backdoor the comprehensive immigration bill.
Principled conservatives are going to fight what needs to be fought, Joseph. Regardless of who controls what branch, we need to stick to our principles and not say, well Republicans are bad, but Democrats are worse, so let’s settle. Settling only encourages further bad behavior by the GOP and furthermore does nothing to stop the Democrats from spiralling even further away from limited, Constitutional government.
Can’t you just for once agree that Bush is right in vetoing these bloated bills, but he should’ve been vetoing (slightly less) bloated bills years earlier? Who cares who is in control of Congress? Bloated, expansive, government is so regardless of whether the President or Congress has an (R) or a (D) next to their name.
17
AM
Joseph puts Republican before Conservative.