Sunday, February 06, 2005

Reaganesque Largesse

Well, the Presidential historians were more correct than they most likely expected in their analysis of our President. As the President promised during his State of the Union Address and through his campaign, he will be cutting a substantial amount of unnecessary governmental waste. As Drudge linked:

"The president, who campaigned for re-election on a pledge to cut the deficit in half by 2009, is targeting 150 government programs for either outright elimination or sharp cutbacks."

In that regard, he is much more like The Gipper than his father, in that he believes at the most fundamental level that the money people earn from hard labor and countless hours at the office should belong to them; that they know how best to spend it on themselves. Of course this is the standard neoconservative/Reaganite platform, but it's always pleasing to stand back and admire and revere a logical leader with a populist zeal. Yes, the liberals have been shamefully proved wrong yet again. The Vice President's confidence on the budget is definitely solid:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday defended the plan against Democratic criticism that Bush had to seek steep cuts in scores of federal programs because he is unwilling to roll back first-term tax cuts that opponents contend primarily benefited the wealthy.

Let us course over the details of the new budget, shall we? Essentially:

Bush will propose spending $2.5 trillion in the budget year that begins Oct. 1. For the current year, he is estimating the budget deficit will reach a record $427 billion. That compares with last year's $412 billion deficit and is the third straight year the Bush administration will have set, in dollar terms, a deficit high.

The five-year projections in the budget will show the deficit declining to about $230 billion in 2009, when a new president takes office.

Those projections do not take into account some big-ticket items: the military costs incurred in Iraq and Afghanistan, the price of making Bush's first term tax cuts permanent, or the transition costs for his No. 1 domestic priority, overhauling Social Security.

President Bush is hardly the elitist tyrant that the leftist opposition would like you to believe he is. It's almost comical how blatantly incorrect an entire movement of people can be - a pathetic group of political naivete and a skewed perception of reality. Luckily, with every passing success of the Bush Administration, there is less support for failure in America, and an exponential amount of support for traditionalist neoconservatives (Howard Dean can help with that).

However, as with all political issues, there remains the inevitable: naysayers. Leading Democrats had such things to say as this:

... Bush's budget "talks about the next five years of reducing deficits, but what that hides is what happens after that five-year window. The cost of everything he advocates explodes."

Of course they are ignoring Bush's plan to strengthen Social Security and cut a vast multitude of unnecessary programs, not to mention cut taxes, but since when do the Democrats' analytical skills acknowledge logic - or reality, for that matter? Oh, and, lest we forget, the RINOs always have something to say about big news in Washington. Especially those particular RINOs who enjoy being slaves to the media. Yes, I am talking about John McCain:

"I'm glad the president is coming over with a very austere budget. I hope we in Congress will have the courage to support it."

Essentially, Bush's cuts are not ideal by any means, but his actions will definitely have a positive effect on our great nation's economic status and on the legacy of our President. He could have cut over 500 programs, but the mere 150 should suffice for the time being. I applaud his commonsense thus far. Maybe now if we could only get him to privatize healthcare...

Powered by Blogger