I really believe that if Bush has a clear mandate, he's gonna make a strong effort to cut government spending sharply.
However, that's nothing more than a belief; I have nothing to back it up.

I think the time for the federal government to even consider reigning in spending is long passed, like before Reagan got out of office.

That's the problem, Bryan. They are reigning in spending, when they should actually be reining in spending. [smirk]

...I think I may be more proud of that pun than any others I can think of in recent history.

*groan*

(Okay, actually, that was pretty clever.)

Laugh and the world laughs with you.

Pun and you stand alone.

(I thought is was a great pun!)

Actually, it's "fart and you stand alone."

But punning isn't all that different, so...

Well, punning also leaves a stench that takes some time to dissipate...and also feels SOOOO good when you relax and let one out.

I doubt we'll ever see spending truly get cut, since now a reduction in the rate of growth is referred to as a spending cut.

Nathan, I hope you're right about Bush, but I'll sure believe it when I see it.

You know, it's entirely defensible to say that if the government grows at less than the rate of the economy or the population, it is a cut. It's also entirely defensible to note that if the economy shrinks, the government will seem to "grow" if it doesn't shrink with the economy.

From my perspective, Republicans who are mad at Bush for not cutting spending are not being sensible. Nor are Democrats who are made at him for whatever latest damnfoolishness they're mad at him for. Fact is the man got himself a war, an unforeseen national emergency, and a major recession all in his first year in office, and had to find the political capital to deal with all of them at once.

And the truth is, spending is controlled by Congress. Which Republicans are in charge of. So unless you're expecting Bush to declare major hostilities with the Congress, demanding massive spending cuts while simultaneously demanding support for the war effort...

Some GOP members of the House have tried to make a stand on spending. Dean, there is some merit to the idea that the President has a lot of influence over what the congressional leadership in his party does. He and Frist and Hastert tend to be on the same page on most things, I'm sure.

But even at that, I can't really bring myself to get more than a tad miffed over spending because of just what you say: war, national emergency, inherited recession. Also throw in Daschle's "Jumpin' Jim" power grab, and the continuing fecklessness of the Senate Republican leadership.

Yes, it's true, the Republicans in the Senate have no feck.

I can be upset about spending because of bad legislation like the Medicare bill. Instead of looking for ways to make government leaner and more efficient, our Pres handed us a massively expensive entitlement program, and the House and Senate GOP green lit the thing all the way through.

To be completely honest, spending under Bush has been downright Donkey-esque. Clinton, as I said previously on this site, has a much better record on spending (although I also noted that his record probably would have been much worse if he had a congress willinging to green light things like his wife's health care program).

There's a lot to like about Bush, in my world. But there's a lot to feel pretty uncomfortable about, too.