Kerry for President (Part 1)
I've decided to break up the various reasons for voting for Kerry in 2004 into separate posts. This partly stems from the fact that I am writing too much right now for a single post, and from the fact that I am engaged in arguments right now with anti-Bushites for Bush that I am still "chewing" on.
As a start, let's look at the domestic picture. With a Republican-dominated House and Senate, Bush has been heartily expanding the Federal government with glee. As columnist Anne Applebaum notes
According to the president's fiscal 2005 budget, discretionary federal spending -- meaning money nobody is being legally forced to spend -- has risen 29 percent over the past four years and is growing even faster than spending on Medicare and Social Security. According to a Cato Institute study, the increases for 2002, 2003 and 2004 constitute three of the five biggest annual increases in the past 40 years. Contrary to popular belief, not all the money has been spent on the military: Spending on everything besides defense will increase by more than a third during President Bush's first term. Nor is it all going to homeland security. The Education Department, once slated for abolition, has experienced a huge spending boost. So has the Energy Department, whose creation was once greeted with skepticism. In fact, many of the programs that Republicans promised to eliminate in the mid-1990s -- the dubious public-private partnerships, the extraneous commissions, the grants for pet causes -- now have larger budgets than ever.
The budget deficit
last year was $377 billion; this year Bush hit $413 billion. A Kerry win would help to reduce this and the obscene growth of government during Bush's tenure; instead of fawning over Bush, the Republican majority in congress would be fighting Kerry tooth and nail over every policy he tried to set in motion. In the fight for the future, gridlock is essential to keeping this country alive until we can philosophically reclaim her.
POSTED BY THE GENERAL AT 9:01 PM