Biggest Cheeleader has laid down the Pom Poms.
 

and the hangover begins.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120183030007834031.html?mod=myyahoo_module

Legacy of Deficits
Will Constrain
Bush's Successor
Soaring Costs
Threaten to Impose
A Harsh Reality
By MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS and JOHN D. MCKINNON
February 1, 2008; Page A3

WASHINGTON -- George W. Bush took office in 2001 with budget surpluses projected to stretch years into the future. But it's almost certain that when he returns to Texas next year, the president will leave behind a trail of deficits and debt that will sharply constrain his successor.

On Monday, the president will unveil a $3 trillion-plus budget request for his final year, which is likely to show a deficit of more than $400 billion. New details of the budget emerged yesterday, with officials saying the White House plans to keep a lid on nonsecurity discretionary spending. It wants to cut about $200 billion from the government's medical programs for seniors and the poor.


for those of you paying attention, that's up 25% from the 2.4 Trillion dollar budget that Tom Delay said 'THERE'S NO ROOM TO CUT ANYTHING ANYWHERE.

And just think, in less than a year he comes back home to Texas to be near you again. :)

"Tom Delay said 'THERE'S NO ROOM TO CUT ANYTHING ANYWHERE."

Like hell.

If it were my decision I'd eliminate about half the government overnight and start working to find ways to eliminate about another 25%. The bloated and ridiculously bureaucratic nature of our government today is something that would have been unfathomable by our founding fathers. I believe that at least 90% of federal spending could be transferred back to the "sovereign states", or eliminated entirely.

It should take a Constitutional amendment to expand government. That's the one place the founding fathers screwed up.

You gave me an idea joe...ooops somebody already has one.

http://www.lighterside.com/product/65352.do?code=VL000026&WT.srch=1

<embed src="http://www.backwardsbush.com/images/BackwardsBush_Flash.swf" quality="high" wmode="transparent" bgcolor="#000000" width="300" height="255" name="BackwardsBush" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /embed>

and another cheerleader who has seen the light.

by Peter Hart

Viewers of ABC's Good Morning America saw something very unusual earlier this month: Fox News Channel's star host Bill O'Reilly admitted he was wrong about something. Sort of.

Right before U.S. forces invaded Iraq, O'Reilly made a bold promise on ABC about Iraq's WMDs: "If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration again, all right?"

Last week, thanks to persistent needling from ABC host Charlie Gibson, O'Reilly mustered a half-hearted apology: "Well, my analysis was wrong and I'm sorry.. I was wrong. I'm not pleased about it at all." As to the promise to "never trust the Bush administration again," he was considerably less forceful: "I am much more skeptical of the Bush administration now than I was at that time," he explained, before blaming CIA chief George Tenet for Bush's troubles.

<embed src="http://www.backwardsbush.com/images/BackwardsBush_Flash.swf" quality="high" wmode="transparent" bgcolor="#000000" width="300" height="255" name="BackwardsBush" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /embed>

We've had this discussion before, POP. The reason nobody noteworthy makes remarks like this is because they are asinine. We've had this discussion before, and I am still waiting for you to outline where those cuts can be made. But then.....that would require you to understand just a little about government and budgets. In other words, it would ruin your ability to hate, and pretend to be intellectually superior. It would teach you why things are the way they are. It would make you an informed person. So obviously, we're not going to hear the details of your brilliant "plan."

Let's start by increasing funding for education:

Tax dollars are collected locally, then sent to Washington DC, where bureaucrats skim their salaries off the top, before sending whats left of it back to the local district with lots of strings attached, and lots of forms to fill out, to make sure the money is used in a way approved by a guy sitting in a cubicle hundreds or thousands of miles away.

Lets eliminate the Department of Education, which is simply a middleman. Let the local districts have the local money, and decide themselves how it can be best invested.

There is step one. Shall we continue?

Highway funding would be another area in which we could eliminate Federal involvement. Every state would be responsible for their own roads. This would eliminate a great deal of Federal bureaucracy, and Federal influence as well. Their (actually our, filtered and skimmed through them) money could no longer be used to strong-arm federaly mandated policies in areas in which they legally have no business.

Some would argue this actually falls under Federal jurisdiction, using a broad interpretation of "interstate commerce". Why, the roads must be in good shape to support interstate commerce, mustn't they? Of course; that means roads properly fall under the perview of the Federal Gubmint, right? Wrong; that is simply too great of a stretch. Leave the roads to the states and save literally billions in wasted bureaucracy every year. Next?....

Actually, of the Dept of Ed's budget the administrative cost is about 2%. The rest is returned to states, i.e. local school disticts and students,


Of all funds spent on elementary and secondary schools, only 9% comes from Fed gov.


So what is your beef?

Regarding highway, and other infrastructure, being the States' responsibility, perhaps the Federal Government should only determine minimum standards for construction and maintenance. The only problem becomes, "What if the States' cannot (or are unwilling to) afford to maintain critical infrastructure?"

POP - if you cut all those gov jobs it will add to the unemployment numbers. They will have to get paid through anyway. Plus that puts certian types into the work farce who airn't really used to working or have figuered a way to screw and skirt work. Yup - just what we need!

Jeff, that reasoning would lead one to push responsiblity for highways and roads down to local users, causing all roads to be toll roads. That is just what you are fighting against: a whole bunch of people in every locality being paid to oversee the toll operations and perform maintenance. Of course, when they have repaired the road this week, there may not be any real work for them the next week but you will need to still pay their salaries so as to have them repair the road when necessary.

That's just bizarre logic.

So I guess the State should actually control NOTHING because they might ultimately assign responsibility to local cities and towns?

Well, local districts should have local control over solely local issues. Highways are not local.


So you don't think local control and responsibiolity for maintenance of highways would not lead to toll roads and a local maintenance crew only partially utilized?

Bizarre.

State highway maintenance is State highway maintenance. Why infer default to local control?

Have the states surrendered tax collection to the locals? Fish and Game? Park Services? State environmental laws? Why would they do so with roads? It is not the logical progression if the Feds surrender highway control to the states.

I don't know about you guys, but the toll roads I drive on seem to be the best maintained and best designed. It's not such a bad idea.

Keep in mind that the interstate system was designed for transporting military hardware, not conveniencing the populace. It's primary function (and what still drives engineering guidelines to this day) is moving military equipment. Any benefit to the economy and little old you and me is a side one at best.

Cut the budgets for every single federal office by 50%. Start there. If people get laid off, it's unfortunate but so be it. You can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs. To speak to the comment about it costing us in unemployment costs, yes that's correct. In the short term. However, most people will eventually be absorbed into private sector where they'll ultimately do more good anyway. Short term pain, long term gain.

LOL! Go to Chicago. Their tolls seem to be there for the sole purpose of building more toll booths. The roads are completely bombed out. Not 911-friendly. :eek:

Well, how about the interstates.


Not a bizarre inference at all. Look at this comment from someone outside of Denver complaining about the need to rasise money to pay for Denver's highways.

"When did Colorado become a socialist-welfare republic? Denver is grossly overstepping its bounds taxing the rest of the state for their wants and desires.
Welfare as a valid career choice, sanctuary for illegal aliens who kill the police and flee back to Mexico, feeling sorry for the drug and/or alcohol addicted street people.
It is high time for personal responsibility to be reinstated in American society. I am beginning to not care if welfare recipients or panhandlers eat, have a place to sleep, have decent clothing, or health care.
When a working man is taxed into poverty to support all the amenities for those unwilling to work, it's time to vote the tax-and-spend secular-progressives out of office. Better yet,run them out of the State of Colorado altogether."