> Looks like Dems consistantly outspend Republicans
> exept for one time and that was after 9/11.
Mr. Bush's non-defense, non-security spending has increase at double
the rate of Mr. Clinton's: ~4% vs. ~8%.
The spending is in the Pork Bills, the Energy bill or highway bills
for example. Here are some things Mr. Bush signed for:
* Increase the federal gas tax by 5¢ and index the tax to inflation.
* $1.2 Billion for bike paths
* Hiking trails
* Nature centers
* Obesity programs for children
* Battlefield preservation
* 2 Indian casinos in Michigan
The Highway bill is over 800 pages and contains 2,800+ earmarks for
spending - 1000 more than the Democrat's. In addition it contains a
"re-opener clause" that triggers a revisit in 18 months for more
spending.
Here's what the Wall Street Journal said (March 30, 2004; Page A18):
"They've rigged the spending formula for states in such a way that few of
them will meet their "minimum guarantee" for gas-tax payback. So instead of
sticking with this highway spending limit for six years, the tax-and-spend
Republicans will be able to go for the gold again once President Kerry has
been elected, or once Mr. Bush is in a second term and more likely to
placate Congress in return for other votes."
Of the Republican legislation proposals in general the Wall Street Journal says:
"These are huge grab-bag spending bills that target home districts and
reward lobbyists. And they are entirely divorced from any kind of rational
policy debate."
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
