>
> You think Bush is spending a lot, wait and see what
> happens if Kerry wins.
It doesn't matter what Mr. Kerry says he wants to do; his congress and
senate will be Republican led. A divided executive and legislative
government can't pass law unless they agree - and since they will both
keep the other in check the fiscal bleeding will immediately stop.
The fastest spending growth (real federal outlays) occurred during:
1.) Kennedy-Johnson, 4.8% annually, same party in congress.
2.) Bush-Cheney, 4.4%, same party in congress.
3.) Carter-Mondale, 3.7%, same party in congress.
The slowest spending growth occurred:
1.) 0.4%, occurred during the Eisenhower years, other party controls congress.
2.) 0.9%, was in the Clinton era, opposite party congress.
3.) Nixon-Ford years, at 2.5%, opposite congress.
4.) Ronald Reagan's presidency, at 3.3%, opposite congress.
If you exclude military spending and only include real domestic
discretionary outlays then Mr. Bush looks even worse. The largest
spenders are then:
1.) Bush-Cheney, 8.2% increases
2.) Ford, 8%.
3.) Nixon.
The point is, historically, what keeps spending down is a split
Presidency and Congress. So fiscal conservatives really only have one
choice in this debate: Mr. Kerry.
If you don't believe me ask Douglas Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato
Institute, former visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and a
former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He's the guy who
originated this argument.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
