🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1165442512.289953.3000@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>, Larry Bud wrote:
>
>bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
>> For the House of Representatives!?
>>
>> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16065625>
>>
>> OMG! Elected officials might actually have to DO something for the
>> $165,200 per year each of them takes from the taxpayers!
>
>Sounds like a HORRIBLE idea.  I'd rather have politicians get NOTHING
>done than time to think up new ways to tax us.

  Or worse still, new/additional spending without taxation to support
such spending, so that the taxpayers pay later plus interest rather than 
now!

  Remember how between maybe the 1963 tax cut and now (late 2006) the 
Federal government has mostly been ridden with deficits, with a big 
exeption being Clinton's second term where the President faced a hostile 
Congress?

  Well, Reagan had to face an opposite-party Congress in his second term,
but back then people voted for Democrat congresscritters to "bring home 
the pork" and voted for a Republican president to protect themselves from
Democrat congresscritters other than their own.  Also, every fiscal year 
Reagan submitted to Congress a budget request with deficits close to those 
that finally resulted.

  Not that I consider Clinton some great angel - earlier in his 
administration before the surpluses that he presided over, he did oppose a 
deficit reduction bill known as "Penney-Kasich".

  And now and in recent years, I hear less about budget battles and 
deficit reduction while I hear as much as ever about pork!  Some fiscal 
year in his first term Dubla requested an $8B "energy bill" and did not
veto the $14B one returned to him!  Makes me think that Eisenhower was the
last "fiscal conservative" in the White House!  (Eisenhower even presided 
over cuts in Defense spending, and in 1960 boosting Defense spending was
one reason for Americans to vote Democrat!)

 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)