Howdy Ben,
I don’t dispute any of these
contentions about spending. However, ask yourself, given the 2000 bubble top,
what was the alternative path? I think the answer would have been a very
severe recession or possibly a depression. So, the choice was either take
all of the pain over a short amount of time or over 20 years as we are doing
now. Given the possibility for a 1929 style crash and depression, I think
the latter is the lesser of the two evils.
Regards,
Norm
From: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ben
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 12:55
PM
To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [RT] Party of Bloat
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:
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
Yahoo! Groups Links