i hesitate to post an article critical of bush, since the libs here critize him so relentlessly anyway. in any case, perhaps this will prompt a dem to honestly discuss some controversial issue of Kerry or Edwards, like say, their disasterous proposals for the war on terror. hey, a guy can dream, can't he? in any case, and excellent article, although i could have done without the obligatory dig at the NEA. http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/izumi200402060852.asp -- Flawed Fiscal Philosophy Bush should listen to Friedman and Hayek. By Lance T. Izumi The fiscal news out of the White House continues to be appalling. The Bush administration now admits that the recently enacted $400-billion prescription-drug program will actually cost $534 billion. This week President Bush unveiled a record $2.4 trillion budget proposal. Despite a few nominal program cuts made by the White House, overall federal spending is spinning out of control A key reason for this is the president's flawed fiscal philosophy. The president has been right on target when it comes to taxes and their effect on the economy. Because of his persistence, federal income taxes have been lowered, the marriage penalty has been reduced, the death tax is being phased out, and taxes on capital gains and stock dividends have been cut. The economy has responded with higher growth and increased productivity. Yet Bush fails to tie his tax cutting to anything resembling spending discipline. If it's a noble cause, then the president seems willing to spend the people's money on it. Besides his costly prescription-drug program, Bush wants to spend billions of tax dollars on new government initiatives ranging from a manned moon mission to programs for strengthening marriage to increased spending on existing programs such as the National Endowment for the Arts. The president seems not to fully realize that taxation and spending policies are more than just fiscal tools to improve economic performance or address group demands. In addition, these policies determine the extent of individual liberty in our society. In this regard, Bush should heed the advice of two Nobel Prize-winning economists and conservative icons, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Friedman has always supported tax cuts for more than just their effect on the economy. A few years ago, he wrote, "I have long favored cutting taxes at any time, in any manner, by as much as possible as the only way of bringing effective pressure on Congress to cut spending." Bush, however, has not used lower taxes as leverage to cut the congressional allowance. Instead he has acted like the parent who gives his child everything the child wants. For Friedman, taxation and spending policies are not ends in themselves, but rather the " means to the ultimate objective of increasing the freedom of the individual to use their resources in accordance with their own values — as President Reagan put it, to get government to get off our back." To get government off our backs, spending, in addition to taxation, must be curtailed. Friedman's recommendation: "A real cut in direct and indirect government spending as a fraction of national income is required to achieve that basic objective." Government spending on noble causes, even those staked out by Bush, still adversely affect the individual liberty of Americans. In his famed book Road to Serfdom, which celebrates its 60th anniversary this year, Hayek warned that when government seeks to impose specific effects on people, "It must, of necessity, take sides, impose its valuations upon people and, instead of assisting them in the advancement of their own ends, choose the ends for them." The National Endowment for the Arts, for example, has certainly been guilty of imposing the government's values on people in its choice of art projects to fund. Hayek further observed "that the most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people." Although it may take generations, "even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard if the danger is precisely that new institutions and policies will gradually undermine that spirit." One can see such a transformation occurring in the American people. A people who once demanded "give me liberty or give me death," now say "give me a government program" as an answer to any perceived problem. An expansionist government, even in the pursuit of noble causes, reduces freedom. That's why the current federal spending spree isn't just a budget issue, but a freedom issue. Given the unrest among his conservative base, President Bush must rediscover the importance of limited government to the maintenance of a free people and the promotion of a free society.
Nice source basso, typical conservative propaganda garbage with no purpose other that to... um bash our presidents fine fiscal policy?? DOH!
You guys realize there are some conservatives out there who aren't just trying to be part of the propaganda machine, who have values and stand up for them.
I believe that but there are only about three or four in the Senate and less than twenty in the House, based on recent votes. They can protest all they want but if they don't boot out porkers, it's a moot point. The only thing that drives the machine is more money from fundraisers which comes from more money from government pork, ad infinitum. I would also call these guys hypocrites for not going dirty on Bush with the total all out lies all the time if they think he should not be in office the same way they went after Clinton.
Is it me or have a lot of the more consevative posters stopped posting here in D&D? Back in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars numbers seemed much more even. Nowdays one conservative posts a single thing and they are attacked en masse. It seems the few who have stayed on to post their views do so just to 'represent', and have given up hope on meaningful debate. Even TJ used to balance his hit-and-run style with some substance, but now just slings whatever he can. Oh, btw, I think GWB's financial policies suck. On a more serious note, I don't think any democratic administration is really going to turn around the economy in four years. We have increased productivity but still no major lowering of the jobless rate. Is raising taxes back up really going to help anything? I mean, the govt has to raise some revenue from taxes to put any meaningful dent in this massive deficit, but when are we going to see a meaningful recovery from this recession? How will it be done? I actually could have supported Bush's tax cuts if he had the guts to cut spending like a true financial conservative. Is any dem nominee really proposing something that's going to get us into a real turnaround? Assuming the dem nominee wins this Nov, it's not fair that he's handed a massive deficit, just like it wasn't fair that GWB was handed the firebombing of the financial center of the western hemisphere.
I think part of the reason that this didn't get much response from liberals and Democrats here is that most of us find little common ground with the writer except the criticism of the exploding deficit. Noblity in this Administration? I don't see it. Right on target with his tax cuts? Not hardly. Not in my opinion and in the opinion of many others. And the disingenuous slam at the tiny budget of the N.E.A. makes the writer look like he's really reaching to make a point. Most informed Republicans that I know, even if they didn't like some of the N.E.A.'s funding decisions (and many do like what the N.E.A. does) hardly look at it as even a drop in the bucket in a 2.4 trillion dollar budget. This is a poorly written effort. A Republican upset with this President's priorities could surely do a much better job than this.
