Three Quarters of a Trillion $ & Counting

Three quarters of a trillion dollars later prosecuting George Bush's war, and we have Secretary of Defense Robert Gates with cup in hand pleading before the U.S. Senate for 42 billion$ more to fund the war in Iraq for the remainder of the year. Nearly 10% of the entire national debt at 8.9 trillion$ will have been placed on the backs of American citizens-

Fiscal insanity has set in. Printing presses run wildly. Democrats have not the guts to say "No" to defunding the war, though they believe Americans swept them into office to end Gulf War II. Cut back spending? Not on your life- every Democrat has every intention of expanding government programs across the land-whether we like it or not.

What about Republicans? Have they not played Benedict Arnold toward the American people? The party of Taft, Goldwater, and Reagan have abandoned the financial responsible ship becoming irresponsibly complicit with their donkey friends racking up more debt in six years than all the debt accumulated from the first 200 years of this nation. Nearly 10% of the nine trillion dollar debt has been racked up by Bush's liberal "global crusade" for freedom in six years.

The President describes himself as a "compassionate conservative." Yet, how different is President Bush's record to that of LBJ's "Guns and Butter" campaign that shoved down the American people's throats war in Vietnam and war on poverty? Didn't LBJ promise to win the Vietnam War and erradicate poverty-neither which has come true? Didn't Bush #43 promise to win the "war on terror" while spoonfeeding Kennedy-like prescription bills and No Child Left Behind bills to the American people to keep them silent strapping the citizens with 9 trillion dollars in debt instead of the 5 trillion he came into office with?

How different is Bush's Education Department to Jimmy Carter's Education Department of 1977? Whereas Reagan sought to abolish Carter's famed Department of Education because of waste, government control, and inefficiency, George Bush #43 heralded the enlargement of federal bureacracy- more employees, greater regulation, greater tax dollars, and anemic scores in a one size fit all program. If this is fiscal conservativism, who needs the likes of Ted Kennedy, Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and Reed?

Where are the Andrew Jackson's, Harding's, and Coolidge's of America? These were great presidents, contrary to popular belief.

Didn't Warren Harding spearhead a return to prosperity championing tax cuts, paying down the debt, and restraining "The Great Leviathan" with a new Bureau of Budget? So vital was the Bureau of Budget, that President Harding had Charles Dawes report directly to the President about the slashing of government spending and eliminating waste in government. Was Harding not "elected on a platform calling for cutbacks in government?" (Sobel R., Coolidge p. 225)

President Harding hastened America's global crediblity. With Charles Dawes appointed as the ax man Congressional officials were put on notice as Harding "promoted thrift, economy, and efficiency." Dawes succeeded. And Americans were grateful.

And dare we forget President Harding's courage six weeks before election in 1924? The "Bonus Bill" giving billions of dollars to WWI American soldiers was vetoed by President Harding. The reason given? Such a give-away "would be a disaster to national finances" placing America in further debt. Harding risked everything for the principle of financial responsibility, an "America First" attitude.

What of Calvin Coolidge's record, his successor in 1924? Mr. small government himself managed to captain American prosperity, limit federal government involvment in the lives of our citizens. "Lower taxes and reduced government spending..." was President Coolidge's mantra. Politicians did not like him. After all, less government means draining the swamp in Washington. Slashing of programs, departments, and jobs was his goal.

What historian ranks Coolidge highly? None. He purposefully exerted no grand ideas except to let Americans govern their own personal lives, while reducing their taxes and eliminating federal spending. Pretty boring stuff just the way Coolidge thought the presidency should be run.

"Boring character displayed in the long run outlasts what is temporarily spectacular," said Claude Fuess. Mr. Fuess was Mr. Coolidge's biographer. President Wilson's "bureaucracy gone mad" was remedied by "Silent Cal", the President whom historians will never highly regard because he imposed no great ideas or heavy yoke upon the American people-only a steady hand in a time of need.

History records that it was President Cooolidge who pounded away at liberals time and again with his "Government and Business" speech? Great ideas in New York produce capitalism, wealth, prosperity, and hope for all Americans. Big ideas in D.C. enslaves our citizens to centralized command and control policies - socialism, facism, and communism that are likely to destroy American ingenuity, prosperity, and hope. Limit D.C.; unleash New York. "America's business is business" said President Cooliddge.

George Bush, sadly enough, has masqueraded as a conservative to win votes. He has governed liberally to win his legacy. He will not be ranked with "Silent Cal" or even Harding who worked to reduce the size of government. Instead, Bush #43 will go down as the LBJ and Wilson of the 21st century having piled up more debt that the first 41 presidents of our nation combined.

Only one question remains for our republic:

Where will we find our next Andrew Jackson, Harding, or Coolidge that will fight the good fight reigning in the evils of spending?