Would true conservatives countenance the fiscal rape of their children and grandchildren?

One thing the Bush Administration clearly has been very good at is focusing the attention of the press (and by extension the American people) on issues that they want to highlight. This has had the effect of advancing the Bush agenda, but has had the added effect of deflecting focus away from things that the Administration does not want to highlight. One of those issues is clearly the rampant, runaway spending of your tax dollars by Bush and the Republican majority congress. At this point there can be no doubt that, as they try to focus your attention on issues like stem cells and Supreme Court nominations, Bush and the Republican Congress are spending us all into a hole from which it will take us, our children and our grandchildren years to recover.

You don’t need to take my word for this, nor the words of any democrat or Bush-hater. You need only to read what conservatives like George Will are saying, or the people at conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. The Cato Institute recently completed a report on the spending habits of all US presidents during the last 40 years. If you’re interested in reading the report I’ve included a link at the end of this post.

If you want to continue to believe that Bush and Congressional Republicans are “on your side” or if you care only about saving stem cells and banning gay marriage perhaps you should read no further. But if you’re interested in the truth and are concerned about your financial well-being and that of your children, perhaps you should read on. Here’s some of what the Cato Institute report had to say about presidential spending over the last 40 years:

All presidents presided over net increases in spending. As it turns out George W. Bush is one of the biggest spenders of them all. In fact he is an even bigger spender than Lyndon B. Johnson in terms of discretionary spending.

The increase in discretionary spending in Bush’s first term was 48.5% in nominal terms. That’s more than twice as large as the increase in discretionary spending during Clinton’s entire 2 terms (21.6%) and higher than Lyndon B. Johnson’s entire discretionary spending spree (48.3%).

Adjusting the budget trends for inflation Bush looks even worse; his spending rate is much higher then Lyndon Johnson’s. In other words, Bush expanded federal non-entitlement programs in his first term almost twice as fast each year as Lyndon Johnson did during his entire presidency.

George W. Bush is the biggest spending president of the last 40 years in both the defense and discretionary spending categories by a long shot. He beats Johnson by almost 4% in defense spending growth and more than 3% in domestic discretionary spending growth.

And conservative columnist George Will points out that in his column today that federal spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush and congressional Republicans as under President Clinton. And with respect to the argument that this profligacy is related to 9/11 and homeland security, Will and the conservative think tanks have noted that over 65 percent of the spending increase is unrelated to national security.
Will further reports that Congressional Republicans (who achieved their majority by promising fiscal discipline) have presided over an orgy of pork spending with your tax dollars the likes of which have never been seen before. In 1991, the 546 pork projects in the 13 appropriation bills cost $3.1 billion. In 2005, the 13,997 pork projects cost $27.3 billion.

You may support Bush and the congressional Republicans because of some vague promise of “progress” on social issues with which you and the Republicans agree. In that case perhaps you are entitled to refer to yourself as a “social conservative.” But nobody who calls themselves a fiscal conservative could support Bush and the Republican Congress who are spending your tax dollars in an orgy of profligacy the likes of which has not been experienced in our lifetimes. You can continue to deny yourself this truth, but be assured that true conservatives know the truth. Bush and the Republican Congress are asking you to mortgage their futures and the futures of their children and grandchildren in exchange for soft “promises” on social issues. You are justifying the fiscal rape of your children and grandchildren perpetrated by your “moral” leaders in exchange for a vague promise of gains on social issues. Do yourself and your kids a favor; look them in the eye and explain to them why you have chosen to saddle them with these financial burdens, explain to them your reasoning. Then look in the mirror and explain to yourself how you can continue to support the people who you know in your heart are screwing you and to your kids. Is that morality? Is that conservatism?

Read the whole Cato article here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

Read the Will column here:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/will/cst-edt-geo17.html

Wow, defense spending increased by 4%???

Not enough in my book. got to make up for all that was cut in the 90s.

Besides, if the pie grows, so what?

Cap't, Dailypundit has an interesting post about
irredentism:

...That's what Mark Krikorian thinks will happen if the Administration's immigration proposals are enacted. He expects the massive, unintegrated Mexican underclass these initiatives will create to demand separate political status and make geographic claims: ...

Hmmmm. A bit off-topic, phil . . .

Subjects for another day and another blog perhaps . . .

Chester,

When I served in the Counterdrug office of the Pentagon from 1995-1997, I spent some small amount of time visiting JTF-6 and listening to reports in the office on them. You have already exceeded the extent of my "on the scenes" knowledge, but there are a few points about their mission which I remember from the Clinton administration policies. I am sure most of the workings of the oversight of JTF-6 from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) have changed, but this is what I remember:

JTF-6 had the sole responsibility for counterdrug efforts in the continental US and along the Southwest border area of the US. They were the only DoD domestic support agency with personnel assigned to support law enforcement entities in counterdrug applications. This included surveillance activities, sensor deployment, and engineering support (fences, roads, lighting which the DEA/ATF/BP/Customs requested for their counterdrug purposes). While you are correct they had no units permanently assigned, Guard and reserve units were routinely assigned for significant periods for training and thus constructed many projects along the border.

This was funded from training budgets, with some funds for the materials provided by OSD from counterdrug funds. It was during this period that 3 Marines were sought by law enforcement because they killed a young cattle rancher's son when he fired his .22 towards them. The youngsters made a huge mistake in that they thought they needed to remain covert and were being deliberately fired upon maliciously. They should have stood up and yelled at the kid to stop shooting at them, but they didn't. Even young Marines make mistakes. One of them shot the kid and he died. DOD got him out of the jurisdiction to prevent locking him up and placing him at the mercy of local law enforcement. He was disciplined (I don't remember whether through court-martial or not) and DoD took responsibility for the death. I have heard nothing else since this time, so I don't know how the parents were compensated or what procedures were laid out to prevent future occurrences. A flat out tragedy in all respects.

Deployments of personnel to counterdrug missions were allowed for up to 180 days only and then personnel had to be returned to civilian jobs if they were reservists or guardsmen. Anything over 180 days required SecDef permission. Only communities which needed to implement stop loss procedures anyway received this permission. (The only stop losses I remember in this period [1995-1997] were Air Force navigators who were in really short supply, and they were used in South America so didn't belong to JTF-6). And this was before the so called back door draft was ever mentioned by anyone.

JTF-6 also heavily deployed PSYOPS and MI personnel to assist in getting info from or on the drug runners in MX. EPIC(El Paso Intelligence Center) was set up during this time and staffed by DoD and federal law enforcement personnel to specifically fight drug smuggling into the US. If DEA needed assistance DOD supplied what they could provided the request had merit and was verified to be legal under Posse Comitatus, and subject, of course, to availability of resources.

The drug smuggling routes were divided up among 4 "families" in MX and very general routes through Puerto Rico and the sea coasts otherwise. The Arellano Felix Brothers and some Mexican guy whose name escapes me were the two worst of the four groups and they were both aligned along the TX borders, one towards the coast and the other further inland. The sea routes and PR were run by Columbians or by Mexicans under Colombian contract. Much of the drug trade used to be monopolized by the Colombians, both heroin and cocaine. Afetr we began having success against their air and sea smuggling operations, they enlisted the Mexican gangs to help them move their cargo through the Southwest border. The Mexicans usually got a share of the cargo and sold it as their fee. Over time, this made the Mexicans the most ruthless of the drug lords since the Colombians would continue to get arrested by their cops and become less powerful. Now the MX gangs are the worst.

The guy I can't remember died on a plastic surgeon's operating table several years ago, and the Arellano Felix brothers took over his operations. They were eventually arrested or killed a few years ago and their lieutenants succeeded them in the operation.

These gangs are violent, ruthless, and have taken to killing Americans and using their long term relationship with the MX federales to set up their own hit squads and commando teams. For many years the drug lords insisted upon not killing Americans because they knew that widespread killings would lead to US military enforcement of the borders or at least heavier law enforcement presence. When those lords were killed, their less sophisticated lieutenants and lower level thugs had less foresight and restraint. Hence the FBI task force sent to the TX border recently to stop the violent crime wave spilling over into Laredo and the Del Rio area.

I don't believe this can end well for either country. We will never stamp out drug abuse, no matter how benevolent and understanding we are, nor how ruthless we become. Even the Soviets were fallible in their security. But I believe insistence on law enforcement and surveillance along the borders can effect the flow of drugs, and make the drug lords fall to heel. It will require Mexico to step up and do more than they currently do, but their attitude appears to have improved over the years, and Bush and Fox are the two correct people for this job. They aren't perfect, but they are the best we can expect. Both want to allow poor Mexicans to enter the country (legally, if possible) to provide a workforce for the lowest paying jobs in our economy (there is no way to make America run smoothly without them at 5% unemployment), while ensuring that the crooks are put in their place and are not allowed to violently prey on innocents on either side of the border. It is not perfect, and it never will be.

Now you have reached the limits of my meory. Hope this adds to the discussion.

Subsunk

blundstone usa shoes Hi there! Nice site You have! Best regards!