WP: Conservatives Criticize Bush* on Spending

Medicare Bill Angers Some Allies

By Dana Milbank

Saturday, December 6, 2003; Page A01

Last month's passage of a Medicare prescription drug benefit that could cost $2 trillion over 20 years, after three years of sharp increases in federal spending, has provoked an unusual barrage of criticism of President Bush from conservative leaders.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page accuses Bush of a "Medicare fiasco" and a "Medicare giveaway." Paul Weyrich, a coordinator of the conservative movement, sees "disappointment in a lot of quarters." Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist with the National Center for Policy Analysis, pronounces himself "apoplectic." An article in the American Spectator calls Bush's stewardship on spending "nonexistent," while Steve Moore of the Club for Growth labels Bush a "champion big-spending president."

(snip)

But in the long term, the conservative leaders say, their discontent could spread to a popular backlash if spending continues to swell, pushing up deficits and interest rates. And the free spending is already limiting Bush's policy options. For example, economist Bartlett said, "the budgetary situation is getting so off track that you simply can't propose any more tax cuts without looking like a complete idiot."

The issue came to a boil this week, when White House economic aides summoned conservative economists to allow them to vent their rage. But according to participants, the session did little to dampen their anger. Joel D. Kaplan, the deputy director of the White House budget office, displayed a chart showing that, outside homeland security and defense, spending was falling. But under tough questioning, one participant recounted, Kaplan conceded that his figures did not include the series of "emergency" supplemental measures requested by Bush each year.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40090-2003Dec5.html

and start the assault on Bush.

Would be fun to watch them rip into him on policy, and expose his tactics.

Ah, but then, I wake up . . .

They know this can't be good long-term. I've always leaned to the left, but I have some conservative feelings. It's all about being sensible and I think a lot of conservatives are seeing nothing sensible about what's going on right now.

Conservatives tend to be mild-mannered and fiscally conservative, though I've never considered dems to be "tax and spend." The neocons are more like "tax the middle class and poor, and spend, spend, spend!" This is NOT a good long-term strategy and I think your typical Republican politician is not seeing a good ending to it all.

What I would like to see is a few Repubs defect to the other side, or at least a lot of continued criticism of the direction the PNAC has taken this country.

But under tough questioning, one participant recounted, Kaplan conceded that his figures did not include the series of "emergency" supplemental measures requested by Bush each year.

From Rush to the White House functionary in the article and above, they continue to deliberately and shamelessly lie to the American people for nothing more than political expediency. Lies and the lying liars who tell them.

"outside of homeland security and defense, spending was falling". What Kaplan means here, is that social programs have been cut. I believe Bush just recently signed a new defense budget for $407 billion, by far the lion's share of the budget.

Also, notice the "exceptions". He's doing his best to distort the total picture of spending, only focusing here and there. He's trying to hide the disaster of the Bush administration with a smoke screen.

This is like a woman coming home after an insane day of shopping with the credit cards. Her husband is furious and sees the packages and bags everywhere. He demands to know how much she has spent.

"But honey, aside from the credit cards, my spending on groceries and necessities has gone down".

,...of the neo-con agenda (not that Buchanan is reliable but he does have his bucket of influence in the conservative wing).

<snip>

A neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interest.

by Patrick J. Buchanan


The War Party may have gotten its war. But it has also gotten something it did not bargain for. Its membership lists and associations have been exposed and its motives challenged. In a rare moment in U.S. journalism, Tim Russert put this question directly to Richard Perle: “Can you assure American viewers ... that we’re in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?”

<more>

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html