Bush's Spending Record: Does Anybody Remember There's A War Going On?

On CNBC earlier this week, a fallacious analysis , by the Heritage Foundation, no less, was presented, contending that Federal spending growth under Clinton was about half (3%) of what it has been under Bush (7%).

Does anyone remember we're fighting a shooting war in Iraq and Pakistan?

To compare total spending under Clinton, who, by the way, was interested in shrinking the military, with that under Bush, is like saying FDR just started spending through the roof one day, under conditions no different from those on Herbert Hoover's watch, conveniently overlooking the occurrence WWII.

What gives here? Between repairing defense after Clinton starved that spending, and combating the terrorism threat that President also left intact, Bush had no choice but, amidst the response to hostile attacks on US soil, reply with force, necessitating increased spending.

In his editorial letter in the Wall Street Journal offering a defense against Alan Greenspan's charges of Bush administration profligacy, Vice President Dick Cheney pointedly compares growth in discretionary spending categories between Clinton's and Bush's terms.

Finally, let's recall that, after Congress challenged President Nixon's use of impoundment, in court, and won, no subsequent President can be held fully accountable for Congressional spending. Rather than being able to use a line item veto, impoundment, or any other conditional means of tempering Congress' spending, a President is left with only a veto of total spending bills. Which bills tend to be omnibus affairs calculated to dare a President to starve the Federal government of funding, in order to further various other political and spending agendas.

There is simply no comparison between Federal government spending rates during Clinton's and Bush's terms of office. The war in Iraq and Pakistan make a basis for any such comparison difficult to establish, with Cheney's approach being the most realistic. And on that score, examining non-defense, security and discretionary items, Bush is actually doing quite well.

HillaryCare 2.0 Previews in California....and It's Failing

A recent Wall Street Journal article provides some important insights into the developing fate of HillaryCare 2.0, the newly-unveiled universal healthcare proposals from Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The first surprise, for me, at least, is that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's healthcare plan was primarily designed by the same architect who designed HillaryCare 2.0- Laurie Rubiner. Ms. Rubiner has solid liberal-left wing credentials going back some years, including "directing health-care issues at the liberal New America Foundation," according to the Journal article.

Among the features shared by "ArnoldCare" and "HillaryCare 2.0," are: universal coverage mandates; ban on premium differentials based on actual health status; expansion of Medicaid, and; a requirement that insurers offer policies to all applicants.

The experiences of ArnoldCare suggest HillaryCare 2.0 could be in for a lot of trouble. The Democratically-controlled California legislature won't even pass the plan. According to the Journal's piece,

"It was too tax-heavy for Republicans and not nearly interventionist enough for Democrats."

Lots of people seem to believe that the next President just has to be a Democrat, because George Bush's poll numbers are so low. Then, they'll tell you that that Democrat has to be Hillary, because- well, here the reasons multiply, but essentially- it's "her" time, time for a woman to win the Oval Office, she's punched her ticket in the Senate, yada yada.

I think these people conveniently forget that, in some cases, what the candidate stands for, by her/himself, will actually matter. It seems to me that the same people who criticize Fred Thompson for only having character or values, and no detailed plans, overlook Hillary's total absence of declared values, and her implied, totally-political and calculating character.

This time, however, Hillary may have made a big mistake. She's once again revealed her core socialist stripes, by floating a national universal healthcare program devoid of market elements, aping an ailing approach that the largest state in the Union can't manage to implement.

Now, we discover the plans really are so alike because they share a common architect- Laurie Rubiner.

I wouldn't bet on Hillary just yet. She seems to have a whole year left in which to make some career-limiting mistakes, on the campaign trail to the White House in 2009.

Bad Science, Sloppy Analysis

The Wall Street Journal, in its Friday "Science Journal" column on September 14th, reported on medical scholar John Ioannidis' review of 'scientific research, ' both published and, especially troubling, refereed.

The headline on this topic is that much published science is misleading, inaccurate, and/or simply wrong. Ioannidis found flaws in miscalculations, inept study design, and self-serving data analyses. In the Journal piece, he is quoted as saying,

"There is an increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. A new claim about a research finding is more likely to be false than true."

Dr. Ioannidis goes on to warn that the 'hotter' the field, the more suspect are the research findings claims.

As I was reading this article, one topic kept coming to mind. Of course, it's global warming.

Of all the recent junk science claims, global warming would seem to most fit Dr. Ionannidis' description of poorly done, dubious claims.

Little of the supporting "evidence" comes from refereed papers or Journal articles. Instead, those who would dispute any global warming findings are shouted down as in the pocket of big business, or having the wrong politics.

Environmental change is perhaps, currently, the penultimate 'hot' field. Each new finding supporting global warming is front page news. Conflicting findings are often simply ignored.

For instance, the recent discovery that this century's hottest year was actually early on, in the first two decades, poked a major hole in on Federal government scientist's contentions regarding recent warming trends. When confronted with his mistake, he alleged that recent temperature trends were not the basis on which he had made various claims.

Dr. Ioannidis' own research is both refreshing, and troubling. Refreshing for daring to find that many scientists' work is poorly done, mistake-laden, and suspect. Troubling, in that much government policy and public perception are shaped by such incorrect published scientific work.