A Presidential Shopping Spree

[wkirby]

A Presidential Shopping Spree
by Will Kirby
URL: http://www.wkirby.com

Riding into Washington on the train of Reagan’s ideals of limited government and fiscal responsibility, President Bush will end his first term with a distinction that can be given to only one other President - John Quincy Adams. Both are the only full single-term Presidents to not veto a single bill. The result is a government that has been effectively given a blank check to surfeit its appetite for pork and other expenditures. Under the President’s first term we have seen an increase in Government spending by a prolific 13.5%, making his Presidency one of a bigger, more spend friendly government than his predecessor, President Clinton.

In his address to the Republican National Convention, the President offered solutions to many domestic problems with the perfunctory solution of throwing money at them. Despite offers of only a modest 4% increase in domestic spending, we can be assured that a “no veto” President will approve far more than the stated 4% when offered to do so by Congress.

The White House has misled the American public in its excuse for this governmental shopping spree. They offer the rife excuses of a “9/11 Defense” and say, “Defending the nation isn’t cheap!” Interestingly enough, they herald President Reagan’s military buildup as what saved us from Soviet domination during the Cold War as a blueprint to justify their budgetary negligence. The reality is that it pales in comparison to the Ronald Reagan budgets. They are correct in stating that Reagan did boost defense outlays by roughly 19.2% in his first term. The key difference between the Bush and Reagan budgets is that Reagan also reduced non-defense outlays, cutting domestic spending by 13.5%.

Rarely would I offer Reagan as an exemplar of how to financially run our nation, but at least it did have some resemblance to accepted budgetary restraint. Looking forward to this election we have essentially two very difficult options with really a “lesser of two evil’s” approach to its solution. With Bush we have a candidate that will spend as if your tax money is burning a hole in your pocket, while offering no governmental restraint to prevent budget deficits. Kerry will most likely spend as well; at least he offers realistic methods to bring more revenue into the government’s coffers.

For the simple fact that Kerry offers at least some opportunity for financial management that avoids budgetary deficits, he gets my nod for the best “Sheppard of America’s tax-stuffed wallet.” Like it or not, Clinton and a Republican congress kept our government’s growth in check. We have a reluctant hope that a Kerry administration with a Republican congress will do the same.

The above article may be reprinted with permission. Contact [e-mail].