Hey, Big Spender

There's that old saying that 'Money talks,' and when it did recently it reminded conservatives of what we always ignore:  President George W. Bush is a big—spending liberal.   The White House Office of Management and Budget released its mid—session review which happily proclaimed in short, that the Bush tax cuts have fueled the economy.  It came to this conclusion based on the fact that, in the fiscal year 2005, the deficit was whopping $318 billion, and now it's only a mere $296 billion.

President Bush gleefully claimed this financial 'surplus' means tax cuts are an effective way to fuel the economy.  He's right; it worked.  But unfortunately, this mid—session review pointed out another obvious fact:  Republicans are spending addicts, and that is not supposed to be the case.

Just a couple days ago, the Heritage Foundation's Brian M. Riedl responded to the review with a compilation of data and number—crunching.  He begins by saying while it's true that the 2003 tax cuts succeeded in fueling the economy, the current spending 'threatens American's fiscal and economic future.'

The facts about the Bush administration spending habits are hard for conservatives to read.  After all, we are the party of limited government, right?  According to the Heritage report, 'spending under President Bush has increased from 18.5 percent of GDP to 20.6 percent' and even though it may appear that government is spending less because of the deficit decrease, spending has increased nine percent, the largest since 1990.  Since 2001, federal spending (on things like defense and homeland security and education) has jumped 45 percent.

President Bush may have campaigned on the broad and general principles of limited government but he's let his compassionate conservatism ruin his concentrated conservatism.  Either he spends money on government programs because he feels it's the right thing to do to help people, or he feels pressure from his liberal cohorts to do what they would've done had they been sitting in the Oval Office.  Perhaps it's a convoluted mix of the two.

Either way, neither motivation is reason enough to be one of the biggest spenders in the White House as of late.  If compassion is his motivation, he should know that the Biblical principles which he says guide him don't advocate for social programs to help the poor but for families and the church to help the poor.  The Salvation Army, one of the largest and well—known private charitable organizations in the world, was founded by a Christian who was motivated to help those in need.  Bush should not wield his Presidential seal as a sort of Christian Savior helping the poor by robbing the rich.  Even if he hasn't raised taxes, the budget hasn't exactly been cut either.

If President Bush feels he must maintain good standing with his liberal friends and center—to—left leaning voters by adopting their big government tendencies, he has misjudged his voting base.  Or, maybe he feels he'll actually lose support if he curbs his spending habits.  The administration should realize if the President really cut back, he'd probably gain support and positive reviews in those dreaded performance polls.

Conservatives want a true conservative in office, one who advocates fiscal conservatism as much as he does social.  We need a Reaganite leader who believes the founding principles of limited government still pertain to us today and that they will make this country more successful than any government program will. After all, the smaller the government, the more free the people, and freedom from government regulation creates opportunities for families and businesses alike.

Bravo to President Bush for pointing out that lower taxes do fuel the economy.  But it's the tip of the iceberg compared to the devastating spending habits that lie beneath. While the fact that we are drowning in debt is destructive, how far we have strayed from our original fiscally conservative principles is demoralizing.  Now, instead of being remembered for his compassionate conservatism, President Bush may be remembered as that big—spending liberal, who only campaigned as a conservative.

Peri Bertram is the pseudonym of an activist in Republican Party politics.

There's that old saying that 'Money talks,' and when it did recently it reminded conservatives of what we always ignore:  President George W. Bush is a big—spending liberal.   The White House Office of Management and Budget released its mid—session review which happily proclaimed in short, that the Bush tax cuts have fueled the economy.  It came to this conclusion based on the fact that, in the fiscal year 2005, the deficit was whopping $318 billion, and now it's only a mere $296 billion.

President Bush gleefully claimed this financial 'surplus' means tax cuts are an effective way to fuel the economy.  He's right; it worked.  But unfortunately, this mid—session review pointed out another obvious fact:  Republicans are spending addicts, and that is not supposed to be the case.

Just a couple days ago, the Heritage Foundation's Brian M. Riedl responded to the review with a compilation of data and number—crunching.  He begins by saying while it's true that the 2003 tax cuts succeeded in fueling the economy, the current spending 'threatens American's fiscal and economic future.'

The facts about the Bush administration spending habits are hard for conservatives to read.  After all, we are the party of limited government, right?  According to the Heritage report, 'spending under President Bush has increased from 18.5 percent of GDP to 20.6 percent' and even though it may appear that government is spending less because of the deficit decrease, spending has increased nine percent, the largest since 1990.  Since 2001, federal spending (on things like defense and homeland security and education) has jumped 45 percent.

President Bush may have campaigned on the broad and general principles of limited government but he's let his compassionate conservatism ruin his concentrated conservatism.  Either he spends money on government programs because he feels it's the right thing to do to help people, or he feels pressure from his liberal cohorts to do what they would've done had they been sitting in the Oval Office.  Perhaps it's a convoluted mix of the two.

Either way, neither motivation is reason enough to be one of the biggest spenders in the White House as of late.  If compassion is his motivation, he should know that the Biblical principles which he says guide him don't advocate for social programs to help the poor but for families and the church to help the poor.  The Salvation Army, one of the largest and well—known private charitable organizations in the world, was founded by a Christian who was motivated to help those in need.  Bush should not wield his Presidential seal as a sort of Christian Savior helping the poor by robbing the rich.  Even if he hasn't raised taxes, the budget hasn't exactly been cut either.

If President Bush feels he must maintain good standing with his liberal friends and center—to—left leaning voters by adopting their big government tendencies, he has misjudged his voting base.  Or, maybe he feels he'll actually lose support if he curbs his spending habits.  The administration should realize if the President really cut back, he'd probably gain support and positive reviews in those dreaded performance polls.

Conservatives want a true conservative in office, one who advocates fiscal conservatism as much as he does social.  We need a Reaganite leader who believes the founding principles of limited government still pertain to us today and that they will make this country more successful than any government program will. After all, the smaller the government, the more free the people, and freedom from government regulation creates opportunities for families and businesses alike.

Bravo to President Bush for pointing out that lower taxes do fuel the economy.  But it's the tip of the iceberg compared to the devastating spending habits that lie beneath. While the fact that we are drowning in debt is destructive, how far we have strayed from our original fiscally conservative principles is demoralizing.  Now, instead of being remembered for his compassionate conservatism, President Bush may be remembered as that big—spending liberal, who only campaigned as a conservative.

Peri Bertram is the pseudonym of an activist in Republican Party politics.