The GOP’s Embrace Of Big Government I enjoyed Mr. Gizzi’s cover story on government growth ["Is GOP Embracing Big Government?"]. It is about time the issue was brought up. I am a little tired of hearing how great the pseudo-conservative Bush Administration is for the conservative movement. I cannot name one conservative on the White House staff. In your article on government growth you should have mentioned that the Bush Administration has three of the five largest percentage increases for federal budgets in history, which is pretty good for an administration that has been in office for only three budget cycles. You could have also pointed out that Bush’s history includes a 39% increase in state spending while he was governor. Keep up the good work.
Mr. Gizzi, what planet are you from? The Republican Party is big government just like the Democrats. They have spent more money than the Dems could ever dream of and on things the Democrats consider sacred: the worthless and destructive Department of Education, biggest increase ever by—guess who?—the Republicans; Clinton’s volunteer AmeriCorps, corporate welfare; Bush throwing pills at old people to buy their votes just like the Demos; you name it. You cannot state a single year where spending went down with the Republicans in charge. Conservatives just do not seem to get it. They squawk about taxes but ignore the most important thing. A Libertarian knows that spending is the worst tax of all! The more government spends, the more it controls, and that is the most dangerous and insidious thing for all Americans. Small government means small spending. It means the less money spent the less control of government over our lives, our property and our freedom. The stupid Bush tax cuts, which are small and phased in over years and then the taxes come back like some B-movie horror film monster are at best a bad joke. Conservatives need to learn that you reform taxes by getting rid of them and the spending that goes with it. Borrowing money to pay the bills is a bad idea and in the ’80s it was the Republicans with the big deficits as is the case now. Bush prefers to just spend more even on Clinton’s pet schemes. A Republican is no alternative, Mr. Gizzi, just a member of the Jackass party in an elephant suit.
Energy Efficiency As an Environmental Fallacy Michael Catanzaro’s article about natural gas ["No Natural Gas Crisis?"] properly disparages "a ‘California-style public education campaign’ to encourage energy efficiency" by noting that it was "the same campaign launched when California suffered rolling blackouts, caused by the state’s self-inflicted energy supply shortages." Energy efficiency sounds so good, but the consequences are not what the promoters expect. Increasing energy efficiency always begets increased consumption. The energy we save in one area, we use in another, but use it we do. Here’s an example: The U.S. has made billions of individual efficiency improvements involving dozens of different technologies from the very beginning. As a result, we only use 3.1 times as much energy per capita as people did in Ben Franklin’s time, in spite of cars, computers, household appliances, jet planes, hair dryers, and the like. The number 3.1 is a lot lower than most people expect (they will often suggest numbers like 100 or 1,000), but it is also greater than 1.0. If efficiency actually decreased consumption, the number would have to be less than 1.0.
Appreciates Rep. Fossella’s Eyewitness Reporting in Iraq I’ve heard of "embedded journalists," but an "embedded Representative" from Brooklyn, N.Y.? The article ["Progress in Iraq"] by Rep. Vito Fossella (R.-N.Y.), who visited Baghdad with several of his colleagues, was a refreshing report. We should congratulate Rep. Fossella for his excellent coverage of the restoration of civil government, water, energy resources (electricity), security and free elections. He refuted many of the prior pessimistic claims that "…progress is too slow, the situation is unstable, and the United States lacks the expertise to get the job done…" Congratulations, Rep. Fossella, for an informative report—I hope it will be the first of many interesting and informative reports.
Socialists Masquerading As Republicans and Democrats The kicker "Are We All Socialists Now?," on your cover story ["Buy Your Own Drugs, Grandma"] poses an interesting question that deserves an answer. In the fine print you have referred to "Republican(s)" about six times. Which is it? Are they Republicans or are they socialists? Please allow me to resolve this confusion. These politicians to whom you refer, as well as those on the other side of the aisle are SMADARS. They are Socialists Masquerading As Democrats and Republicans!
