You'll get your prescription drugs from the equivalent of the Post Office
for medicine.
Pray you never really need medical care.

You've gotten the security of the best military and court system in the
world. You've got the most freedom of any nation on earth.

Now you're willing to give it up for a few pills.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of
chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others
may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Good! I love the fact that I'll be able to get prescription drugs
at somebody else's expense. Have I not paid taxes my whole
life and gotten practically nothing out of it? It's about time
we who have paid get some return.

Long live compassionate conservativism.

S.Simon


"Poppa Pimple" wrote in message
ink.net...
Federal spending soars under Bush's watch

Knight Ridder Newspapers
By RON HUTCHESON
December 4, 2003


President Bush came to office saying he was a fiscal conservative, but
federal spending has skyrocketed on his watch. And it's not just the
Pentagon that's getting more federal dollars.

Overall spending is up by at least 16 percent since he took office, far
more
than the 2 percent average annual inflation rate over the same period.
According to one recent analysis, the government now spends $20,000 a
year
for every household in America, the most since World War II.

In the meantime, the $236 billion federal surplus that Bush inherited in
January 2001 has turned into a $400 billion-plus deficit.

On Monday, Bush will usher in another big new spending program by
signing
Medicare legislation that creates a prescription-drug benefit for senior
citizens at an estimated cost of $400 billion over the next 10 years.

"Spending is up across the board," said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at
the
Heritage Foundation, a conservative research center. "In the past year
and a
half, we've had the biggest education bill in history, we've had the
biggest
farm bill in history and now we're about to have the biggest expansion
of
the Great Society."

Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a
bipartisan
budget watchdog group, said Bush had joined with the Republican-led
Congress
in "a huge explosion of spending."

"The Bush administration hasn't done anything to control spending,"
Bixby
said. "He hasn't vetoed a single (spending) bill as he contributes to
the
expansion of entitlement programs."

Administration officials contend that the criticism - most of which
comes
from Bush's fellow conservatives - is unfair. Some of the biggest
spending
increases, at least in percentage terms, have come in programs related
to
the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq, such as the controversial $87
billion measure that Congress approved this fall.

Spending on homeland security, an issue that drew little attention
before
the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, increased by 85 percent last year with
the
creation of the Homeland Security Department. Even so, it cost only $41
billion in a federal budget of $2.1 trillion - about 2 percent of
federal
spending.

Other increases occurred in entitlement programs, such as Social
Security
and Medicare, whose costs grow automatically as people entitled to their
services submit claims, without specific spending decisions by Bush or
Congress.

Bush aides say the annual growth rate for discretionary spending on
programs
other than defense is trending downward after a sharp spike. After a 15
percent increase in President Clinton's final budget, nondefense
discretionary spending grew by just 6 percent in fiscal 2002 and by 5
percent in fiscal 2003, which ended Sept. 30.

Even so, Bush's record is a big disappointment to conservatives, who
share
his stated goal of a leaner federal government.

"President Bush has yet to meet a spending bill he doesn't like," The
Wall
Street Journal complained in a recent editorial denouncing what it
called
"the GOP's spending spree."

An analysis by the libertarian research center the Cato Institute
branded
Bush "the Mother of All Big Spenders" and compared him unfavorably to
Clinton. By Cato's accounting, after adjusting for inflation, nondefense
spending decreased by 0.7 percent during Clinton's first three years in
office, while it increased nearly 21 percent during the comparable
period
under Bush.

The Heritage Foundation, usually a White House ally, found that 55
percent
of the spending increases since Bush took office had nothing to do with
defense or homeland security. The Heritage analysis also concluded that
spending has reached $20,000 per household.

In some cases, Bush pushed for spending increases. For example, federal
spending on education, a top presidential priority, has increased 65
percent
under Bush.

On other issues, Bush accepted spending increases backed by Congress for
popular programs. To the dismay of some conservatives, he signed a
six-year,
$249 billion farm bill last year that abandoned efforts to roll back
agriculture subsidies.

This year he fought for passage of an energy bill that included $72.5
billion in spending and $23.5 billion in tax breaks, mainly for big
energy
corporations. The House of Representatives passed the measure but the
Senate
put off a final vote until next year.

Many Democrats contend that the problem isn't excessive government
spending,
it's Bush's tax cuts. As spending was rising, tax reductions reduced
Treasury revenues and are responsible for about one-third of this year's
deficit, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a
bipartisan watchdog group.

Deficit hawks say Bush hasn't matched his spending policies with his tax
policies.

"The problem, really, is trying to combine a big-government spending
agenda
with a little-government tax policy. That's the irresponsible part. If
you
want big government, pay for it," said Bixby, of the Concord Coalition.

Riedl, the Heritage budget expert, faults the president for failing to
push
harder for spending restraint.

Yet Bush continues to talk tough on the need for restraint.

"Congress must hold the line on unnecessary spending," he said during a
September visit to Kansas City, Mo. "They need to understand that in
order
to cut the deficits in half, we must have spending discipline in
Washington,
D.C., and I will insist upon spending discipline."