In response to:

The Ryan Budget: Is Returning to Clinton-Era Levels of Fiscal Restraint Really Asking too Much?

psargent Wrote: Mar 17, 2013 4:43 PM
Much as I disapproved of Bush's spending while he had Congress, let's not forget that the spending during his second term really watched up after he lost the House at the mid-terms. I never liked the fact he rarely vetoed any of the deems big spending but cut him slam for keeping the peace with the opposition in order to get some semblance of cooperation on waging the necessary war. One does see just how crazed the deems are by the spending in the first two years of O's administration. Repubs have no excuse for cooperating with them on any spending plans.
NewJAl Wrote: Mar 17, 2013 6:37 PM
Agreed. They never should have cooperated. With a Republican dominated Congress, Clinton went along with the bill that people on welfare were required to look for work and the welfare roles shrunk.
I understand he vetoed or spoke against it 4 times, yet he gets credit. The sky did not fall. But if you are surrounded by the sorts Obama chooses and associates with, a prospering middle class is anathema. Of course he cannot and will not say that, but it is okay to lie for the cause, and he does. One lie? The private sector is doing fine. Ask them. And more and more are on welfare, or medical disability, with their unemployment allowance run out.

It can be very frustrating to work at the Cato Institute and fight for small government.

Consider what’s happened the past couple of days.

Congressman Paul Ryan introduces a budget and I dig through the numbers with a sense of disappointment because government spending will grow by an average of 3.4 percent annually, much faster than needed to keep pace with inflation.

But I don’t even want government to grow as fast as inflation. I want to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.