Todd-'o'-Vision
Super xVirgin Man
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 5,609
Should Americans laugh or cry when Bush practices 'fiscal restraint'? Libertarians ask
WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's much-publicized refusal to spend $5.1 billion approved by Congress is such a weak-kneed attempt at fiscal responsibility that Libertarians don't know whether to laugh or cry.
"Was President Bush joking when he claimed he was practicing 'fiscal restraint' by preventing one more drop of water from falling into the ocean of federal spending?" asked Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party executive director. "If so, America should laugh right along with him. But if not, it's time to start crying, because the economy may never recover from the big-spending Republicans and Democrats."
At the White House economic forum at Baylor University law school in Texas on Tuesday, Bush announced that he was sending a message to Congress that "a limited and focused government is essential to a growing economy." That message consisted of blocking a $5.1 billion amendment to a $28.9 billion anti-terrorism bill because much of the money had nothing to do with protecting homeland security, Bush said.
But the idea that the president performed a heroic feat by rejecting the microscopic amount of money is ridiculous, Libertarians say.
"If Bush is so concerned with frugal government, why did he sign the first $2 trillion federal budget in history?" Dasbach asked. "And why hasn't he vetoed a single appropriations bill since he took office?
"For example, the $200 billion farm bill that he so signed so
enthusiastically was 40 times as large as the amount he rejected on Tuesday; the education bill that he and Sen. Teddy Kennedy championed was five times as large; and the current budget for corporate welfare is 17 times as large.
"Vetoing any of those would have been a much more genuine example of fiscal responsibility than rejecting a paltry $5 billion."
In fact, that $5 billion amounts to just one-quarter of 1 percent of
the federal budget, Dasbach pointed out -- so it's fair to ask whether what happened in Texas was an economic summit or a political farce. "Mr. Bush is absolutely right that a limited government is essential to a growing economy," Dasbach said. "So it's time that he stops relentlessly expanding the government, while paying lip service to economic freedom."
WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's much-publicized refusal to spend $5.1 billion approved by Congress is such a weak-kneed attempt at fiscal responsibility that Libertarians don't know whether to laugh or cry.
"Was President Bush joking when he claimed he was practicing 'fiscal restraint' by preventing one more drop of water from falling into the ocean of federal spending?" asked Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party executive director. "If so, America should laugh right along with him. But if not, it's time to start crying, because the economy may never recover from the big-spending Republicans and Democrats."
At the White House economic forum at Baylor University law school in Texas on Tuesday, Bush announced that he was sending a message to Congress that "a limited and focused government is essential to a growing economy." That message consisted of blocking a $5.1 billion amendment to a $28.9 billion anti-terrorism bill because much of the money had nothing to do with protecting homeland security, Bush said.
But the idea that the president performed a heroic feat by rejecting the microscopic amount of money is ridiculous, Libertarians say.
"If Bush is so concerned with frugal government, why did he sign the first $2 trillion federal budget in history?" Dasbach asked. "And why hasn't he vetoed a single appropriations bill since he took office?
"For example, the $200 billion farm bill that he so signed so
enthusiastically was 40 times as large as the amount he rejected on Tuesday; the education bill that he and Sen. Teddy Kennedy championed was five times as large; and the current budget for corporate welfare is 17 times as large.
"Vetoing any of those would have been a much more genuine example of fiscal responsibility than rejecting a paltry $5 billion."
In fact, that $5 billion amounts to just one-quarter of 1 percent of
the federal budget, Dasbach pointed out -- so it's fair to ask whether what happened in Texas was an economic summit or a political farce. "Mr. Bush is absolutely right that a limited government is essential to a growing economy," Dasbach said. "So it's time that he stops relentlessly expanding the government, while paying lip service to economic freedom."
