Why to vote for Kerry if you're concerned with fiscal policy
The House will stay in Republican hands this cycle. The Senate could go either way. To ensure a critical appraisal ofgovernment spending for the next two years, we need a Democrat in the White House.
When the legislative and executive branches are split between parties, the legislation passed must be acceptable to both sides of the aisle. The welfare reform of the '90s? President (D) and Legislature (R). The tax reform for the '80s? President (R) and Legislature (D).
We've had some heinous spending the past four years. The Republicans in Congress have not felt the need to reign-in the Republican in the White House, and vice-versa.
For those that are concerned with the size of Government, and "entitlement" programs: The Clinton years were good for both! Welfare rolls were decreased, as well as the percentage of U.S. income paid to federal employees. I do not need to remind you of the insane deficits and corporate hand-outs.
To put it bluntly: There is no fiscal argument for keeping the current Administration in power. The odds of fiscal constraint are better with Kerry in the Oval Office, given a Republican-held Congress.
WHAT I WROTE IS STILL CORRECT!
This is one of the confusing points about support for Bush from conservative sections: they agree that this Administration has completely fumbled the response to the attacks of Sept. 11; they're not willing to support Kerry because he's some "Big Spender".
The facts are that this Administration's discretionary domestic spending went up 12% over the Clinton years, we have ballooning deficits, more people are in poverty, and corporate tax revenues are down (mostly through malfeasance).
(I like of the NR guy doesn't refute any of the claims of dishonesty at the Republican National Convention.)