It's interesting that liberals are acting like GW suddenly invented deficit spending in 2000, forgetting conveniently that deficit spending was a major feature of Democratic congresses and administrations for the past forty years. I can still remember when John Maynard Keynes was considered a god by the Democrats. Can you? Clinton rode a huge economic boom to a surplus, raking in taxes generated by a surging market. His policies were no more responsible for the boom than Bush's are for the bust.

Of course, when it's for social spending instead of a military buildup, it doesn't count, does it? Each party has its own idea of what is "excess spending."

The current Federal Budget is over twice what it was in 1974 in constant dollars, adjusted for inflation. I have mentioned this enough to have it become irritating, I'm sure, but this simple fact is so astonishing to me that I can't get over it. Considering the comparable needs of the nation in 1974--at the height of the Cold War--compared to now, it is impossible that at least some, if not most, of this growth is anything other than simple waste.

We are spending far too much money on the Federal level, and right now both parties are on the spending bandwagon. The difference in approach is that almost all Democrats think higher taxes are the answer, while Republicans--although apparently not enough of them--think reducing spending is the answer. Since I agree with the latter, I tend to support Republicans despite their poor performance in this area recently.