Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't know why Barlett takes spending cuts off the table. I wholly expect that we will see significant spending cuts proposed early in theh second term if Bush is re-elected.
|
You can't possibly be this naive. Have you been reading the papers these last four years? If spending cuts were politically viable, wouldn't we have seen them instead of deficits so the GOP never would have had to abandon its reputation for parsimony? Did you miss the part of Bartlett's column noting that "most people support still more spending for education, health, and other programs"? Your party reads polls. Are you still living in hope that there's someone in the GOP who will grow a pair of balls and do something that endangers the GOP's congressional majority?
A million dollars in spending cuts in 2006 is a million dollars not spent in some congressional district or another in 2006, 2007, and 2008. A slight rate increase in 2006 can be sold by the GOP as a way to "leverage" all the massive growth we're expecting in the economy from 43's wisdom and foresight. A GOP vote in 2004 is pretty much a lock for 2008, even if the GOP is responsible for jacking up rates --- shit, most of you guys are being honest about 43 abandoning GOP values, but you're still voting for him in 2004, aren't you? Think that's gonna change? Your electoral votes all come from states where they vote for the candidate who loves Jesus more.
Bartlett doesn't take spending cuts off the table. He's writing about the viable options available to the two major political parties, both of which want to have its candidates elected to various positions in the next decade. You have the luxury of postulating a world, and a GOP, that is consistent with your personal values. Good luck with that.
