I do not follow politics very closely, but it has been my observation over the past 20 years that Republican administrations generally do hit the accelerator when it comes to spending.
The Republicans (I am non affiliated) constantly accuse the Democrats of being "Tax & Spenders," but it is my general observation that Republicans do cut taxes but then spend, spend, spend.
Perfect example is Reagan to Clinton. Reagan, during his administration, cut taxes and created record deficits. When Clinton came into office, he had to raise taxes to correct the problem. Clinton however also had the computer & internet boom on his side which perhaps helped the deficit in round about ways.
So from what I have observed in the past 20 years is that Republicans accuse the Democrats and being tax and spenders, but the democrats have to tax to repair the problematic deficits created by the previous Republican administration.
Now I know that many individuals covet their political party beliefs as much or more than their personal religious beliefs, so I a not trying to cast aspersions here. I am simply expressing a personal observation.
I will also not ask anyone to correct me if they think I am wrong because of the paragraph above. Just an observation.
In a message dated 5/9/05 12:58:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, profitok@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Subject: [ntt-list] Party of Bloat
Good luck in the market, while the country is being led by the "Party of Bloat."
From the Murdoch-owned New York Post:
GOP: Party of Bloat
May 8, 2005 -- THE Republican promise of smaller, less-intrusive gov ernment is getting harder and harder to believe. Especially when a more plausible plot line is unfolding every day: that the GOP has put aside the ideals of Reagan and Goldwater in order to pursue a political strategy based on big spending.
For the latest, check out a report just released by the libertarian Cato Institute that tells a striking story about just how out-of-control spending has gotten under President Bush.
Cato finds that:
* Bush has presided over the largest increase in federal spending since Lyndon Johnson.
* Even excluding defense and homeland security spending, Bush is the biggest-spending president in 30 years.
* The federal budget grew from 18.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product on President Bill Clinton's last day in office to 20.3 percent at the end of Bush's first term.
Add to that Bush's massive Medicare prescription-drug benefit, expected to cost $720 billion-plus over the next 10 years. (The money for that new entitlement, the first created by a president in a generation, will start flowing this year.)
Bush may have cut taxes, but that's not the same thing as shrinking government. And when government expands, as it has under Bush, taxes will eventually have to follow suit.
And Bush's wild spending spree is no anomaly. To Karl Rove's way of thinking, it's the only way for the Republican Party to "seize the mantle of idealism" from the Democrats.
As Rove told a conference of conservative activists in February, he believes the GOP has in the past been too "reactionary." Republicans have to be for things, not against them. They have to have "visionary goals."
This, Rove said, means "reforming" the tax code, health care, pension plans, the legal system, public education and worker training; "building" an Ownership Society of homes and businesses; "preparing" Americans for meeting "the challenges of a free society; "building" a culture of life; "supporting" religious charities, and "fostering" a culture of "service and citizenship."
If this isn't activist government — that thing conservatives used to be against — it's hard to say what would be.
And it costs a lot of money, as Cato makes clear:
* The budget for the Corporation for National and Community Service (which funds Clinton pet project Americorps) rose 76 percent from 1995 to 2005.
* The Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which pays for job training for workers "displaced" by international trade, has almost quadrupled in size since 1995.
* The budget of the Department of Education (not long ago on the GOP's short list for elimination) has grown by 38 percent in just four years under Bush.
Congress is no innocent victim here — it's an accomplice. Under Clinton, the Republican Congress ratcheted down the president's spending proposals year after year, according to the Cato report. But, under a united Republican government, Congress has ratcheted up Bush's spending proposals (larding them with pork) by about $91 billion from 2002-2005.
It's not always easy to see how radically Bush has transformed the GOP — from Reagan's admonition that "government is the problem" to Dubya's own assertion that "when somebody hurts, government has got to move." But it's a real transformation — and an expensive one.
Average Americans will eventually feel it in the taxes that will have to be raised to fund Bush's massive federal expansion.
Republicans who have stuck by the party's leadership mainly because of the War on Terror will begin to feel it in 2006 and 2008, when they realize that Big Government Conservatism is not a strategy or a philosophy — but a sellout.
E-mail: rsager@xxxxxxxxxx
To Post a message, send it to: new-technical-traders@xxxxxxxxxxx
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: new-technical-traders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 5/6/2005
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 5/6/2005