Monday, June 18, 2007

Which Is Worse: "Tax-And-Spend" Or No-Tax-And-Spend?

The President would have us believe the Dems are bad for America. Have a look at this latest political saber rattling from his weekend radio "address" (psst, admit it, you listen to these, don't you?):
For months, I've warned the Democrats in Congress that I will not accept an irresponsible tax-and-spend budget. I put Democratic leaders on notice that I will veto bills with excessive levels of spending. And I am not alone in my opposition. In the House, 147 Republicans have pledged to support fiscal discipline by opposing excessive spending. These 147 members are more than one-third needed to sustain my veto of any bills that spend too much.
Do you think the W is really about responsible government spending? His actions tell us otherwise. I wonder what this means in real fiscal terms when we know that the Iraq war is just deferred payments.

Private security companies, funded by billions of dollars in U.S. military and State Department contracts, are fighting insurgents on a widening scale in Iraq, enduring daily attacks, returning fire and taking hundreds of casualties that have been underreported and sometimes concealed, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials and company representatives.

While the military has built up troops in an ongoing campaign to secure Baghdad, the security companies, out of public view, have been engaged in a parallel surge, boosting manpower, adding expensive armor and stepping up evasive action as attacks increase, the officials and company representatives said.
Does this look like restricted and responsible government spending? As we type, the amount accrued owed to our debtors goes from astronomical to out of the galaxy. I would hate to be the president in charge at the time our W, Rove and Co markers are called?

No comments: