Spending is a disaster part 2

So yesterday I said the Democrats should run as fiscally conservative - and apparently they are starting to. The article shows how this exact thing happened in the 50s, when "Ike turned out to be a big spender who pumped large sums of money into Social Security, foreign aid and schools. He also began Republicans' love affair with laying asphalt by launching the largest domestic infrastructure program in history, the interstate highway system." Gee, that doesn't sound familiar at all. David Frum highlights how bad things are for Bush right now, but reminds us that he is a risk taker and bold leader - not a master of detail. That may be true, but his biggest legacy is going to be expanded government and enormous debt. Congress too has lost it's fiscal sanity: the debt is $7.9 trillion, the baby boomers are going to retire, and nothing has done about the sustainability of social security, medicaid and medicare. It gets worse...since 2001 spending increased $300 billion as U.S. debt grew by $2 trillion. Andrew Sullivan piles on suggesting that Bush is a socialist - very good at spending someone else's money. Ugh. Is there hope? Maybe. Voices on the internet, in local newspapers, and within the Republican caucus are starting to shout. But really, things are pretty bad.

The president and Congress would like us to believe that we can fight a war, protect against terrorism and repair the damage done by natural disasters while continuing to enjoy low taxes. The reality is that, though we may not get all the government we pay for, we will pay for all the government we get.

It's going to have to get worse before it gets better.