Hey Big Spender

[otterinbham 0]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/20767.html

Top Story

Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ

By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

Posted on Wednesday, October 24, 2007

WASHINGTON — George W. Bush, despite all his recent bravado about being an apostle of small government and budget-slashing, is the biggest spending president since Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, he's arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ.

“He’s a big government guy,” said Stephen Slivinski, the director of budget studies at Cato Institute, a libertarian research group.

The numbers are clear, credible and conclusive, added David Keating, the executive director of the Club for Growth, a budget-watchdog group.

“He’s a big spender,” Keating said. “No question about it.”

Take almost any yardstick and Bush generally exceeds the spending of his predecessors.

When adjusted for inflation, discretionary spending — or budget items that Congress and the president can control, including defense and domestic programs, but not entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare — shot up at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent during Bush’s first six years, Slivinski calculates.

That tops the 4.6 percent annual rate Johnson logged during his 1963-69 presidency. By these standards, Ronald Reagan was a tightwad; discretionary spending grew by only 1.9 percent a year on his watch.

Discretionary spending went up in Bush's first term by 48.5 percent, not adjusted for inflation, more than twice as much as Bill Clinton did (21.6 percent) in two full terms, Slivinski reports.

Defense spending is the big driver — but hardly the only one.

Under Bush it's grown on average by 5.7 percent a year. Under LBJ — who had a war to fund, too — it rose by 4.9 percent a year. Both numbers are adjusted for inflation.

Including costs for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense spending under Bush has gone up 86 percent since 2001, according to Chris Hellman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

Current annual defense spending — not counting war costs — is 25 percent above the height of the Reagan-era buildup, Hellman said.

Homeland security spending also has soared, to about $31 billion last year, triple the pre-9/11 number.

But Bush's super-spending is about far more than defense and homeland security.

Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group, points to education spending. Adjusted for inflation, it's up 18 percent annually since 2001, thanks largely to Bush’s No Child Left Behind act.

The 2002 farm bill, he said, caused agriculture spending to double its 1990s levels.

Then there was the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit — the biggest single expansion in the program’s history — whose 10-year costs are estimated at more than $700 billion.

And the 2005 highway bill, which included thousands of “earmarks,” or special local projects stuck into the legislation by individual lawmakers without review, cost $295 billion.

“He has presided over massive increases in almost every category … a dramatic change of pace from most previous presidents,” said Slivinski.

The White House counters by noting that Bush took office as the country was heading into a recession, then reeled from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

“This president had to overcome some things that required additional spending,” said Sean Kevelighan, a White House budget office spokesman.

Bush does have other backers.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative research group, blamed a ravenous Congress that was eager to show constituents how generous it could be. (Republicans ran that Congress until January. Bush never vetoed a single GOP spending bill.)

The White House points out that, nearly four years ago, Bush vowed to cut the deficit in half by 2009, and he's well on his way to achieving that goal. The fiscal 2004 deficit was a record $412.7 billion; the 2007 figure plunged to $163 billion.

But the deficit drop may be fleeting, experts say, since lawmakers are likely to extend many of Bush’s tax cuts, which expire by the end of 2010, and the imminent retirement of the baby boom generation will send Medicare and Social Security costs soaring in the years ahead.

Now, near the end of the seventh year of his presidency, Bush is positioning himself as a tough fiscal conservative.

He says Congress is proposing to spend $22 billion more in fiscal 2008 than the $933 billion he requested for discretionary programs — and that the $22 billion extra would swell over five years to $205 billion.

Eventually, Bush said, “they’re going to have to raise taxes to pay for it.”

And so, the president told an Arkansas audience earlier this month, people should brace for “what they call a fiscal showdown in Washington.

“The Congress gets to propose and, if it doesn’t meet needs as far as I’m concerned, I get to veto,” he said. “And that’s precisely what I intend to do.”

Bush is getting tough on fiscal policy — after running up a record as the most profligate spender in at least 40 years.

“The spending did happen,” said Keating, “and a lot of it shouldn’t have happened.”

[CCTAU 3,350]

We already knew this and have been bitching for a while now. Sometimes you take the good with the bad. The good: No more attacks by terrorists. The bad: spending, immigration, education. Although, the bad must include congress also. But Bush could have vetoed a few things. (like your favorite, the medicare prescr. act)

[otterinbham 0]

We already knew this and have been bitching for a while now. Sometimes you take the good with the bad. The good: No more attacks by terrorists. The bad: spending, immigration, education. Although, the bad must include congress also. But Bush could have vetoed a few things. (like your favorite, the medicare prescr. act)

You're absolutely right. Bush failed to use his Veto stamp once during his first few years in office. As the party leader, he was in charge of the Republican congressional legislative agenda.

If Bush had actually vetoed a few things (And never submitted some very, very bad bills), Republicans would probably still be in control of Congress today. The real problem came when the American people realized there was no basic difference between the two parties in terms of fiscal responsibility. We would have a budget surplus today, despite increase military spending.

And, yeah, the Medicare Prescription Act is my favorite target. We haven't even begun to see how big this thing is going to get. Here we're facing a looming demographic crisis in this country as Baby Boomers reach retirement age, with resulting strain on Medicare and Social Security. So what does the idiot do? Pile on yet another entitlement program. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Quite frankly, if you're not outraged, CC, you're not doing the math. It's not reason to bitch. It's reason to, figuratively, tar and feather the shortsighted nitwit.

[CCTAU 3,350]

I try to stay positive. My family lives in relative safety. Hard to put a price on that. But I still bitch and write my congressmen to quit spending so much damn money. But every now and then, the president must say no. But I'm not ready to tar and feather him. There are wayyyy too many choices out there to just pick out one.

[WinCrimson 61]

Otter, just realize that he has an unwavering loyalty to George Bush that can never, never be eradicated.

At the same time, it's humorous to sit back and watch the chickens come home to roost.

"It's all cool for him to be spending so much damn money because he's single handedly saved suburban Atlanta from the terrorists. Nevermind that this area has never been attacked, I'm going to give him all the credit and stay positive."

[otterinbham 0]

Otter, just realize that he has an unwavering loyalty to George Bush that can never, never be eradicated.

At the same time, it's humorous to sit back and watch the chickens come home to roost.

"It's all cool for him to be spending so much damn money because he's single handedly saved suburban Atlanta from the terrorists. Nevermind that this area has never been attacked, I'm going to give him all the credit and stay positive."

Well, I certainly support a great deal of the administration's investment in defense and homeland security.

However, his absolute recklessness on domestic spending is deplorable. And, while everybody seems to go off on these rants about Hillary (who would be an awful president, to be sure), nobody has the basic gonads to lambast the president, who has proven to be as liberal a president as Lyndon Johnson when it comes to domestic programs.

[AFTiger 282]

Otter, just realize that he has an unwavering loyalty to George Bush that can never, never be eradicated.

At the same time, it's humorous to sit back and watch the chickens come home to roost.

"It's all cool for him to be spending so much damn money because he's single handedly saved suburban Atlanta from the terrorists. Nevermind that this area has never been attacked, I'm going to give him all the credit and stay positive."

Well, I certainly support a great deal of the administration's investment in defense and homeland security.

However, his absolute recklessness on domestic spending is deplorable. And, while everybody seems to go off on these rants about Hillary (who would be an awful president, to be sure), nobody has the basic gonads to lambast the president, who has proven to be as liberal a president as Lyndon Johnson when it comes to domestic programs.

Otter, I don't think anybody has disagreed with you on his spending habits. He campaigned as a compassionate conservative and now we know that compassion is expensive. He managed to discourage the Republican base to the point they failed to show up in 2006 and now the Moveon Party has congress.

But you never address the altenative side; the primary complaints from Moveon Party is that he did not spend enough. No Child Left Behind was "underfunded." The Medicare Prescription Act was "underfunded", according to Moveons.

As deeply disappointed as we are with the President's spending habits, under a President Kerry (who served in Vietnam), it would have been much much worse.

For a glimpse of the future:

The Dems' hidden tax plans

By Dick Morris & Eileen Mc Gann

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | It's easy to see the disguises that the Democratic Party is planning to don for Halloween. Not this year, but in 2009, after they have elected Hillary as president and as many as 58 Democratic senators. (Possible takeaways in Minnesota, New Hampshire, Maine, Oregon, Virginia, Nebr aska, Colorado and New Mexico.)

While we can only speculate on the taxes they are planning to increase — "everything" would be a safe bet — it is becoming clear how they will dress the tax increases up to make the radical change they will, in fact, represent seem moderate and reasonable, even necessary to protect the "middle class."

Put the pieces together:

Why are the Democrats adopting a one-year patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) rather than a long-term fix?

And why are liberal leaders like Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) opposing closing the loophole that protects private equity hedge funds? And why is Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) pushing for a broad-based fix closing capital gains treatment for all partnerships, not just for hedge funds, even though he must realize that such broad-based reform can't pass?

And why did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other Democratic leaders hail the action of the Budget Committee as representing a tax cut when all it did was to include in its long-range plans the renewal of some, but scarcely all, of the Bush tax cuts that will sunset in the next four years?

The answer is that the party is concocting an elaborate costume with which to disguise its coming mammoth tax increases.

Once the Democrats firmly control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, they will probably:

Raise the top bracket on the income tax back up to 40 percent from its current 35 percent.

Increase the Capital Gains Tax from its current 15 percent to 30 percent or, perhaps, eliminate it entirely and tax these gains as ordinary income (at 40 percent).

Double, triple or perhaps eliminate the ceiling on FICA taxes so that instead of taxing only the first $99,000 of income, the levy covers a much higher portion of earned income.

Repeal much of the rollback in estate taxes passed by Bush.

The combined effect of these increases will be horrific, and will probably trigger a recession. As Election Day 2008 nears, it is easy to anticipate massive sell-offs of stocks and real estate in anticipation of a Democratic increase in capital gains rates.

So, to induce America to swallow their tax poison, the Democrats understand the need to camouflage their intentions and hide the m in the rhetoric of middle-class tax cuts.

So here's what they'll do. They will bill their tax increases as a middle-class tax cut by including in the calculation the Bush middle-class tax cuts, which they will not permit to sunset, and also by taking credit for a long-term fix of the AMT. Together, the sums "saved" by these "tax cuts" will be gigantic, at least on paper, and will permit them to call their revenue-raising leviathan a tax reduction. Of course, no actual middle-class human being will see his or her taxes cut. The Bush tax cuts will just continue and the theoretical harm of the AMT will be averted.

Then they will repeal the carried interest exemption on all partnerships (real estate and energy as well as private equity) and will hold up the massive and obscene earnings of hedge fund managers and their unjustifiable tax preferences as the poster child for their tax increases. They will feature Blackstone and its billion-dollar executives as the targets of their tax increases.

All of this camouflage will fool enough people to get the votes in a Democratic Congress to pass their tax program. But once the increases start being felt on tax day, it will be a different story. But, by then, it will be too late. Halloween will be every day.

[otterinbham 0]

"Otter, I don't think anybody has disagreed with you on his spending habits. He campaigned as a compassionate conservative and now we know that compassion is expensive. He managed to discourage the Republican base to the point they failed to show up in 2006 and now the Moveon Party has congress.

But you never address the altenative side; the primary complaints from Moveon Party is that he did not spend enough. No Child Left Behind was "underfunded." The Medicare Prescription Act was "underfunded", according to Moveons.

As deeply disappointed as we are with the President's spending habits, under a President Kerry (who served in Vietnam), it would have been much much worse."

AFTiger...My point is a simple one. It's extremely difficult to depict the Democrats as the Bogeyman when a Republican President is more of a freewheeling spender than Lyndon Johnson, probably the worst buffoon to ever occupy the Oval Office.

The Republicans USED to stand for something. And if you're content to sit back and play the 'But The Democrats Will Be Even Worse' card, then the party's credibility is shredded because it does not offer a true alternative anymore.

Yet you guys are all speaking in terms of disappointment rather than outrage. However, as a result of the Republicans moving away from fiscal restraint, Bush and his cadre of halfwits have severely hampered the party's long-term prospects. And, by doing so, they have weakened the country's long-term economic prospects at the same time.

[WinCrimson 61]

On AF's article...

I'd like to think that the speculation in it was bunk. However, I won't be surprised if it's not.

What politicians don't seem to get is that the proposed social programs we're always hearing about could be financed by simply cutting waste! I recently read and article about how low level minions within the state department we're getting huge, expensive portraits made of themselves at the taxpayer's expense. Unless you're the President or Vice President, get your mug off the walls or pay for it out of your own pocket. We cut out highly expensive portraits, the needless Iraq war, and government funded studies on gay sheep, and voila! You would think that knowingly wasting another person's money would wear on a person's conscience. I guess not?

I may liberal on social issues, but I'm quite conservative (maybe 'responsible' is a better word) on economic issues. Our government spends entirely too much money for what little they produce. It's too bad that none of this will be ending soon, whether the government is controlled by Democrats or Republicans.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Otter, just realize that he has an unwavering loyalty to George Bush that can never, never be eradicated.

At the same time, it's humorous to sit back and watch the chickens come home to roost.

"It's all cool for him to be spending so much damn money because he's single handedly saved suburban Atlanta from the terrorists. Nevermind that this area has never been attacked, I'm going to give him all the credit and stay positive."

WHAT A FOOLISH PERSON YOU ARE. NOBODY HAD EVER ATTACKED NYC AND KILLED ALMOST 3000 PEOPLE BEFORE EITHER.

I sure pray the next attack is not in suburban Atlanta. So far, we've been safe. But that's the difference between smart people(not you) and victims(you). Smart people try not to be victims. But you and those like you are the one's who scream the loudest when you get it. But yet you don't want to acknowledge that in order to stay safe, SOMEONE has to insure that we stay on top of it. That person right now is Bush. Maybe if you had a family to keep safe, instead of having others worrying about keeping you safe, you would feel differently. Once you grow up, things change.

[AFTiger 282]

"Otter, I don't think anybody has disagreed with you on his spending habits. He campaigned as a compassionate conservative and now we know that compassion is expensive. He managed to discourage the Republican base to the point they failed to show up in 2006 and now the Moveon Party has congress.

But you never address the altenative side; the primary complaints from Moveon Party is that he did not spend enough. No Child Left Behind was "underfunded." The Medicare Prescription Act was "underfunded", according to Moveons.

As deeply disappointed as we are with the President's spending habits, under a President Kerry (who served in Vietnam), it would have been much much worse."

AFTiger...My point is a simple one. It's extremely difficult to depict the Democrats as the Bogeyman when a Republican President is more of a freewheeling spender than Lyndon Johnson, probably the worst buffoon to ever occupy the Oval Office.

The Republicans USED to stand for something. And if you're content to sit back and play the 'But The Democrats Will Be Even Worse' card, then the party's credibility is shredded because it does not offer a true alternative anymore.

Yet you guys are all speaking in terms of disappointment rather than outrage. However, as a result of the Republicans moving away from fiscal restraint, Bush and his cadre of halfwits have severely hampered the party's long-term prospects. And, by doing so, they have weakened the country's long-term economic prospects at the same time.

I'm sorry Otter but I only have so many choices. I can quit altogether or vote Democrat and throw us all overboard. Or vote Republican and try to regain some sense. I don't see many solutions from your view. Outrage alone is nonsense.

And don't give me the Libertarian BS. This isn't 1800.

[otterinbham 0]

"Otter, I don't think anybody has disagreed with you on his spending habits. He campaigned as a compassionate conservative and now we know that compassion is expensive. He managed to discourage the Republican base to the point they failed to show up in 2006 and now the Moveon Party has congress.

But you never address the altenative side; the primary complaints from Moveon Party is that he did not spend enough. No Child Left Behind was "underfunded." The Medicare Prescription Act was "underfunded", according to Moveons.

As deeply disappointed as we are with the President's spending habits, under a President Kerry (who served in Vietnam), it would have been much much worse."

AFTiger...My point is a simple one. It's extremely difficult to depict the Democrats as the Bogeyman when a Republican President is more of a freewheeling spender than Lyndon Johnson, probably the worst buffoon to ever occupy the Oval Office.

The Republicans USED to stand for something. And if you're content to sit back and play the 'But The Democrats Will Be Even Worse' card, then the party's credibility is shredded because it does not offer a true alternative anymore.

Yet you guys are all speaking in terms of disappointment rather than outrage. However, as a result of the Republicans moving away from fiscal restraint, Bush and his cadre of halfwits have severely hampered the party's long-term prospects. And, by doing so, they have weakened the country's long-term economic prospects at the same time.

I'm sorry Otter but I only have so many choices. I can quit altogether or vote Democrat and throw us all overboard. Or vote Republican and try to regain some sense. I don't see many solutions from your view. Outrage alone is nonsense.

And don't give me the Libertarian BS. This isn't 1800.

Here's a great third alternative, AF: Actually demand accountability. Not just grouse when somebody on your side backs legislation you don't like. Because, otherwise, all you're doing is making a deal with the devil. And the results won't be any better either way.

[CCTAU 3,350]

"Otter, I don't think anybody has disagreed with you on his spending habits. He campaigned as a compassionate conservative and now we know that compassion is expensive. He managed to discourage the Republican base to the point they failed to show up in 2006 and now the Moveon Party has congress.

But you never address the altenative side; the primary complaints from Moveon Party is that he did not spend enough. No Child Left Behind was "underfunded." The Medicare Prescription Act was "underfunded", according to Moveons.

As deeply disappointed as we are with the President's spending habits, under a President Kerry (who served in Vietnam), it would have been much much worse."

AFTiger...My point is a simple one. It's extremely difficult to depict the Democrats as the Bogeyman when a Republican President is more of a freewheeling spender than Lyndon Johnson, probably the worst buffoon to ever occupy the Oval Office.

The Republicans USED to stand for something. And if you're content to sit back and play the 'But The Democrats Will Be Even Worse' card, then the party's credibility is shredded because it does not offer a true alternative anymore.

Yet you guys are all speaking in terms of disappointment rather than outrage. However, as a result of the Republicans moving away from fiscal restraint, Bush and his cadre of halfwits have severely hampered the party's long-term prospects. And, by doing so, they have weakened the country's long-term economic prospects at the same time.

I'm sorry Otter but I only have so many choices. I can quit altogether or vote Democrat and throw us all overboard. Or vote Republican and try to regain some sense. I don't see many solutions from your view. Outrage alone is nonsense.

And don't give me the Libertarian BS. This isn't 1800.

Here's a great third alternative, AF: Actually demand accountability. Not just grouse when somebody on your side backs legislation you don't like. Because, otherwise, all you're doing is making a deal with the devil. And the results won't be any better either way.

WHAT are YOU demanding? WHAT are YOU doing about it? WHAT have YOU done that addresses the problem?

I write my legislators. That is our best recourse. And then I vote out the guy I feel is causing an issue. But to vote Bush out in favor of a dim would be idiocy. They already want to tax the rich to fund the poor.

Screw us all

[otterinbham 0]

"Otter, I don't think anybody has disagreed with you on his spending habits. He campaigned as a compassionate conservative and now we know that compassion is expensive. He managed to discourage the Republican base to the point they failed to show up in 2006 and now the Moveon Party has congress.

But you never address the altenative side; the primary complaints from Moveon Party is that he did not spend enough. No Child Left Behind was "underfunded." The Medicare Prescription Act was "underfunded", according to Moveons.

As deeply disappointed as we are with the President's spending habits, under a President Kerry (who served in Vietnam), it would have been much much worse."

AFTiger...My point is a simple one. It's extremely difficult to depict the Democrats as the Bogeyman when a Republican President is more of a freewheeling spender than Lyndon Johnson, probably the worst buffoon to ever occupy the Oval Office.

The Republicans USED to stand for something. And if you're content to sit back and play the 'But The Democrats Will Be Even Worse' card, then the party's credibility is shredded because it does not offer a true alternative anymore.

Yet you guys are all speaking in terms of disappointment rather than outrage. However, as a result of the Republicans moving away from fiscal restraint, Bush and his cadre of halfwits have severely hampered the party's long-term prospects. And, by doing so, they have weakened the country's long-term economic prospects at the same time.

I'm sorry Otter but I only have so many choices. I can quit altogether or vote Democrat and throw us all overboard. Or vote Republican and try to regain some sense. I don't see many solutions from your view. Outrage alone is nonsense.

And don't give me the Libertarian BS. This isn't 1800.

Here's a great third alternative, AF: Actually demand accountability. Not just grouse when somebody on your side backs legislation you don't like. Because, otherwise, all you're doing is making a deal with the devil. And the results won't be any better either way.

WHAT are YOU demanding? WHAT are YOU doing about it? WHAT have YOU done that addresses the problem?

I write my legislators. That is our best recourse. And then I vote out the guy I feel is causing an issue. But to vote Bush out in favor of a dim would be idiocy. They already want to tax the rich to fund the poor.

Screw us all

Don't assume much, do you? In fact, I write letters selectively (The least effective thing you can do, by the way, because they usually are read by a staff member, rather than the congreeman himself. In fact, those who write their congressman frequently tend to get tabbed by the IRS for audit). What's more, I speak at several functions a year, attend meetings and ask questions to the point of tedium, and typically get my name in the paper 3-4 times a year whether I want it there or not (usually not because it tends to attract cranks). And I also use what connections I have to do my fair share of backroom arm twisting. Sometimes, I do some good. Most times, all I do is slow things down.

However, more to your point, I do a lot, chiefly because of my background. Which is much more than I can say for most people. I've sat in a lot of commission meetings and feasibility studies where myself and 2-3 other citizens were the only people there.

However, get 10,000 citizens in a district screaming at their congressman, and you'll bet he will listen. Unfortunately, most people are more interested in what's on Dancing With The Stars or what the game is that night than actually getting out and doing something.

[WinCrimson 61]

Otter, just realize that he has an unwavering loyalty to George Bush that can never, never be eradicated.

At the same time, it's humorous to sit back and watch the chickens come home to roost.

"It's all cool for him to be spending so much damn money because he's single handedly saved suburban Atlanta from the terrorists. Nevermind that this area has never been attacked, I'm going to give him all the credit and stay positive."

WHAT A FOOLISH PERSON YOU ARE. NOBODY HAD EVER ATTACKED NYC AND KILLED ALMOST 3000 PEOPLE BEFORE EITHER.

I sure pray the next attack is not in suburban Atlanta. So far, we've been safe. But that's the difference between smart people(not you) and victims(you). Smart people try not to be victims. But you and those like you are the one's who scream the loudest when you get it. But yet you don't want to acknowledge that in order to stay safe, SOMEONE has to insure that we stay on top of it. That person right now is Bush. Maybe if you had a family to keep safe, instead of having others worrying about keeping you safe, you would feel differently. Once you grow up, things change.

I'm a victim? Elaborate.

George Bush is keeping me safe? That's laughable, but not nearly as funny as your comment on "if you had a family, you'd see."

For the record, I don't live with mommy and daddy. Or any other person, for that matter. The only person who looks out for my safety is myself.

[AFTiger 282]

Here's a great third alternative, AF: Actually demand accountability. Not just grouse when somebody on your side backs legislation you don't like. Because, otherwise, all you're doing is making a deal with the devil. And the results won't be any better either way.

Don't assume much, do you? In fact, I write letters selectively (The least effective thing you can do, by the way, because they usually are read by a staff member, rather than the congreeman himself. In fact, those who write their congressman frequently tend to get tabbed by the IRS for audit). What's more, I speak at several functions a year, attend meetings and ask questions to the point of tedium, and typically get my name in the paper 3-4 times a year whether I want it there or not (usually not because it tends to attract cranks). And I also use what connections I have to do my fair share of backroom arm twisting. Sometimes, I do some good. Most times, all I do is slow things down.

However, more to your point, I do a lot, chiefly because of my background. Which is much more than I can say for most people. I've sat in a lot of commission meetings and feasibility studies where myself and 2-3 other citizens were the only people there.

However, get 10,000 citizens in a district screaming at their congressman, and you'll bet he will listen. Unfortunately, most people are more interested in what's on Dancing With The Stars or what the game is that night than actually getting out and doing something.

I combined some of your discussion for brevity: I assume you do your work in Birmingham. I see your accountability project is working well. We almost had some until Clinton fired all of the Federal attornies and let Arrington off the hook. How many millions stolen from the school systems? And you elected Larry "Here's My Bad Idea of the Week" Langford. Birmingham is a great example of Democrats at work.

Accountability; The teacher's union holds the power in Montgomery with Lord Hubbard in the balcony of the legislature directing the votes on the floor. If the education industry runs government in Alabama, why is education so bad?

I know the principles of the Democratic Party and the principles of the Republican Party. I work to elect Republicans that will uphold those principles. Unfortunately I have no control over the Northeast or Birmingham.

BTW, we may have met in one of those meeting.

[otterinbham 0]

Here's a great third alternative, AF: Actually demand accountability. Not just grouse when somebody on your side backs legislation you don't like. Because, otherwise, all you're doing is making a deal with the devil. And the results won't be any better either way.

Don't assume much, do you? In fact, I write letters selectively (The least effective thing you can do, by the way, because they usually are read by a staff member, rather than the congreeman himself. In fact, those who write their congressman frequently tend to get tabbed by the IRS for audit). What's more, I speak at several functions a year, attend meetings and ask questions to the point of tedium, and typically get my name in the paper 3-4 times a year whether I want it there or not (usually not because it tends to attract cranks). And I also use what connections I have to do my fair share of backroom arm twisting. Sometimes, I do some good. Most times, all I do is slow things down.

However, more to your point, I do a lot, chiefly because of my background. Which is much more than I can say for most people. I've sat in a lot of commission meetings and feasibility studies where myself and 2-3 other citizens were the only people there.

However, get 10,000 citizens in a district screaming at their congressman, and you'll bet he will listen. Unfortunately, most people are more interested in what's on Dancing With The Stars or what the game is that night than actually getting out and doing something.

I combined some of your discussion for brevity: I assume you do your work in Birmingham. I see your accountability project is working well. We almost had some until Clinton fired all of the Federal attornies and let Arrington off the hook. How many millions stolen from the school systems? And you elected Larry "Here's My Bad Idea of the Week" Langford. Birmingham is a great example of Democrats at work.

Accountability; The teacher's union holds the power in Montgomery with Lord Hubbard in the balcony of the legislature directing the votes on the floor. If the education industry runs government in Alabama, why is education so bad?

I know the principles of the Democratic Party and the principles of the Republican Party. I work to elect Republicans that will uphold those principles. Unfortunately I have no control over the Northeast or Birmingham.

BTW, we may have met in one of those meeting.

We probably have, given I work the Republican side of the street. I've managed three political campaigns (Two ended in victory, but never, ever again), and done a great deal of behind the scenes work.

Don't be stupid and refer to "me" as electing Larry Langford. I lent support to the Cooper campaign, even though I live in Mountain Brook. I also have played a role on some of the more successful inner city initiatives for education and reducing crime--one effort, by the way, was almost torpedoed by Dee and Russ in the morning, simply because they had nothing better to talk about that day.

That being said, don't be taking pot shots at Birmingham. With a 3.5 unemployment rate, a resurgent downtown area (For example, downtown occupancy is now above 92%, practically an all-time high), and a very healthy, broadbased economy, the city continues to fuel the economic health of this state. What's more, the city's best days remain firmly in front of us.

Regarding Hubbard, his days are on the wane, IMHO. It's not long before the Republicans get control over the legislature. Now if we can do something about Lowell Barron.

[AFTiger 282]

Here's a great third alternative, AF: Actually demand accountability. Not just grouse when somebody on your side backs legislation you don't like. Because, otherwise, all you're doing is making a deal with the devil. And the results won't be any better either way.

Don't assume much, do you? In fact, I write letters selectively (The least effective thing you can do, by the way, because they usually are read by a staff member, rather than the congreeman himself. In fact, those who write their congressman frequently tend to get tabbed by the IRS for audit). What's more, I speak at several functions a year, attend meetings and ask questions to the point of tedium, and typically get my name in the paper 3-4 times a year whether I want it there or not (usually not because it tends to attract cranks). And I also use what connections I have to do my fair share of backroom arm twisting. Sometimes, I do some good. Most times, all I do is slow things down.

However, more to your point, I do a lot, chiefly because of my background. Which is much more than I can say for most people. I've sat in a lot of commission meetings and feasibility studies where myself and 2-3 other citizens were the only people there.

However, get 10,000 citizens in a district screaming at their congressman, and you'll bet he will listen. Unfortunately, most people are more interested in what's on Dancing With The Stars or what the game is that night than actually getting out and doing something.

I combined some of your discussion for brevity: I assume you do your work in Birmingham. I see your accountability project is working well. We almost had some until Clinton fired all of the Federal attornies and let Arrington off the hook. How many millions stolen from the school systems? And you elected Larry "Here's My Bad Idea of the Week" Langford. Birmingham is a great example of Democrats at work.

Accountability; The teacher's union holds the power in Montgomery with Lord Hubbard in the balcony of the legislature directing the votes on the floor. If the education industry runs government in Alabama, why is education so bad?

I know the principles of the Democratic Party and the principles of the Republican Party. I work to elect Republicans that will uphold those principles. Unfortunately I have no control over the Northeast or Birmingham.

BTW, we may have met in one of those meeting.

We probably have, given I work the Republican side of the street. I've managed three political campaigns (Two ended in victory, but never, ever again), and done a great deal of behind the scenes work.

Don't be stupid and refer to "me" as electing Larry Langford. (I was referring to Birmingham, you are only one vote and in Mountain Brook you are zero votes)I lent support to the Cooper campaign, even though I live in Mountain Brook. I also have played a role on some of the more successful inner city initiatives for education and reducing crime--one effort, by the way, was almost torpedoed by Dee and Russ in the morning, simply because they had nothing better to talk about that day.

That being said, don't be taking pot shots at Birmingham. With a 3.5 unemployment rate, a resurgent downtown area (For example, downtown occupancy is now above 92%, practically an all-time high), and a very healthy, broadbased economy, the city continues to fuel the economic health of this state. What's more, the city's best days remain firmly in front of us. Maybe, but Birmingham continues to confuse me with all of the empty buildings downtown and a city council with the combined IQ of a bowl of goldfish. I tried to address that council about their impact on one of our problems and was told by one council member to sit down because I did not live in Birmingham.

Regarding Hubbard, his days are on the wane, IMHO Not the AEA money. Fighting the AEA is like bringing a knife to a gunfight.. It's not long before the Republicans get control over the legislature. Now if we can do something about Lowell Barron.