PERSPECTIVES OF AN INDEPENDENT
The following was posted as a comment on Arianna Huffington's blog yesterday by a poster named Hunter. He is probably the most moderate of all the people who comment there and can be found on both right or left depending on the issue. I don't always agree with him, but I thought this was a rather good explication of the different finances between the presidential candidates:
Conservatism as we have known it is now over. People who became conservatives because of the appeal of smaller government and more domestic freedom are now marginalized in a big-tent government party, bent on using the power of the state to direct people's lives, give them meaning and protect them from all dangers. Recall all that Bush promised the other night in his speech: an astonishingly expensive bid to spend much more money to help people in ways that conservatives once abjured. He pledged to provide record levels of education funding, colleges and healthcare centers in poor towns, more Pell grants, seven million more affordable homes, expensive new HSAs, and a phenomenally expensive bid to reform the social security system. I look forward to someone adding it all up, but it's easily in the trillions. And Bush's astonishing achievement is to make the case for all this new spending, at a time of chronic debt (created in large part by his profligate party), while pegging his opponent as the "tax-and-spend" candidate. The chutzpah is amazing. I'm reminded of the old jewish joke where a man kills his parents and then demands leniency basing his victumization on the fact that he's an orphan. At this point, however, it isn't just chutzpah. It's deception. To propose all this knowing full well that we cannot even begin to afford it is irresponsible to the maximum degree. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats these days is that the Bush Republicans believe in "Big Insolvent Government" and the Kerry Democrats believe in "Big Solvent Government". By any measure, that makes Kerry - especially since he has endorsed the critical pay-as-you-go rule on domestic spending - easily the choice for fiscal conservatives. It was also jaw-dropping to hear this president speak about tax reform. Bush? He has done more to lard up the tax code with special breaks and new loopholes than any recent president in the past 40 years. On this issue - one of the few we all could indorse him on - I have to say I simply don't believe him. Tax reform goes against the grain of everything this president has done so far. Why would he change now? ... Smoke and mirrors anyone...
Conservatism as we have known it is now over. People who became conservatives because of the appeal of smaller government and more domestic freedom are now marginalized in a big-tent government party, bent on using the power of the state to direct people's lives, give them meaning and protect them from all dangers. Recall all that Bush promised the other night in his speech: an astonishingly expensive bid to spend much more money to help people in ways that conservatives once abjured. He pledged to provide record levels of education funding, colleges and healthcare centers in poor towns, more Pell grants, seven million more affordable homes, expensive new HSAs, and a phenomenally expensive bid to reform the social security system. I look forward to someone adding it all up, but it's easily in the trillions. And Bush's astonishing achievement is to make the case for all this new spending, at a time of chronic debt (created in large part by his profligate party), while pegging his opponent as the "tax-and-spend" candidate. The chutzpah is amazing. I'm reminded of the old jewish joke where a man kills his parents and then demands leniency basing his victumization on the fact that he's an orphan. At this point, however, it isn't just chutzpah. It's deception. To propose all this knowing full well that we cannot even begin to afford it is irresponsible to the maximum degree. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats these days is that the Bush Republicans believe in "Big Insolvent Government" and the Kerry Democrats believe in "Big Solvent Government". By any measure, that makes Kerry - especially since he has endorsed the critical pay-as-you-go rule on domestic spending - easily the choice for fiscal conservatives. It was also jaw-dropping to hear this president speak about tax reform. Bush? He has done more to lard up the tax code with special breaks and new loopholes than any recent president in the past 40 years. On this issue - one of the few we all could indorse him on - I have to say I simply don't believe him. Tax reform goes against the grain of everything this president has done so far. Why would he change now? ... Smoke and mirrors anyone...
posted by Chuck Rightmire at 7:02 PM
3 Comments:
Excellent post, Chuck. You seem to save the good stuff for your own blog :). I'll be back.........
Predident Bush is a social liberal, even though he's a Republican.
I'll debate his tax policies with you any time though, because my middle-class tax bill has declined under Bush. With the child tax credits, my Federal tax bill is less than 2%.
No Chuck, President Bush has done a good job for us, and as election day rolls closer, the big differences between him & Senator Kerry are showing.
I don't think this election will even be close by election day. I'll give Kerry 15 states, including California & New York, and the other 35 to Bush.
I guess the previous comment makes your point. Bush can win votes by cutting taxes without cutting spending. Put baldly like that, it's easy to see how it would be difficult for either party to avoid using a proven winning tactic. Equally, it's hard to see how this can avoid harming our currency in the long term.
Post a Comment
<< Home