Federal "fiscal responsibility" nonsense
"Bush Warns He'll Veto Runaway Spending" proclaims the headline.
Let's see. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Bush couldn't wait to hand out $62 billion of other people's money. It didn't matter if they were able to work or if they weren't really victims in the first place: all Bush, Congress and the bureaucrats cared about was buying support from half of the voters who don't pay taxes, hoping more of them will vote than from the other half who do pay taxes.
Bush had no resistance whatsoever to signing "The Energy Policy Act of 2005". It had a price tag of "only" several billion dollars, depending on the extent of the "tax breaks": such "incentives" for specific people mean the rest of us just pay more taxes to compensate, and who knows how much government would give energy companies in the end? The problem with government spending is that it's almost always just an estimate, whereas the rest of us budget our lives within the confines of definite incomes.
Bush likewise was too eager to sign the 2005 transportation bill, which delivered pork to just about every Congressional district, not just "for [Bush's] right wing buddies" as certain morons believe. Bush initially said he'd veto anything over $284 billion, so what did he do? He signed one that's $286 billion. What's $2 billion? A lot. What's $2 billion of other people's money? Not a lot.
Lest you think I'm cherry-picking only specific examples, I'll remind you that Bush's only two vetoes were a stem-cell bill, not because of the spending but because of his "moral" opposition, and a military spending bill pushed by Democrats, not because of the spending but because it included a timetable withdrawal from Iraq. As one of my friends said when I sent him the link to the article, "What's he been doing the last fucking 7 years?!"
My blogfather and friend Don Luskin has said for a long time that we knew all along Bush is a "compassionate conservative" who isn't for limited government. Be that as it may, it doesn't mean we have to believe Bush when he starts talking like a limited-government conservative. Today's Day By Day is pretty accurate, and it would be completely spot-on if "on immigration" were excised.
Let's see. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Bush couldn't wait to hand out $62 billion of other people's money. It didn't matter if they were able to work or if they weren't really victims in the first place: all Bush, Congress and the bureaucrats cared about was buying support from half of the voters who don't pay taxes, hoping more of them will vote than from the other half who do pay taxes.
Bush had no resistance whatsoever to signing "The Energy Policy Act of 2005". It had a price tag of "only" several billion dollars, depending on the extent of the "tax breaks": such "incentives" for specific people mean the rest of us just pay more taxes to compensate, and who knows how much government would give energy companies in the end? The problem with government spending is that it's almost always just an estimate, whereas the rest of us budget our lives within the confines of definite incomes.
Bush likewise was too eager to sign the 2005 transportation bill, which delivered pork to just about every Congressional district, not just "for [Bush's] right wing buddies" as certain morons believe. Bush initially said he'd veto anything over $284 billion, so what did he do? He signed one that's $286 billion. What's $2 billion? A lot. What's $2 billion of other people's money? Not a lot.
Lest you think I'm cherry-picking only specific examples, I'll remind you that Bush's only two vetoes were a stem-cell bill, not because of the spending but because of his "moral" opposition, and a military spending bill pushed by Democrats, not because of the spending but because it included a timetable withdrawal from Iraq. As one of my friends said when I sent him the link to the article, "What's he been doing the last fucking 7 years?!"
My blogfather and friend Don Luskin has said for a long time that we knew all along Bush is a "compassionate conservative" who isn't for limited government. Be that as it may, it doesn't mean we have to believe Bush when he starts talking like a limited-government conservative. Today's Day By Day is pretty accurate, and it would be completely spot-on if "on immigration" were excised.
Labels: Big government, George W. Bush, Government charity, Katrina, Republican hypocrisy, Republican idiocy, State worshippers
posted by Perry Eidelbus at
4:27 PM
2 Comments:
yeah, I wanted to put that in there,too!
choices,choices...
Perry,
Sorry if this is a bad choice of forum, but...
I cannot reach you at the email address on your blog (gmail says no such user) and the Google-only comment system doesn't really allow me to comment as me. Can you shoot me an address? jk [at] threesources [dot] com
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home