Dean is dandy |

Dean is dandy

On Sept. 8, the Trib reported that President Bush requested $87 billion for ongoing costs in the occupation of Iraq.

This is from the leader of the party that promotes itself as the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller government. Yet the administration’s deeds contradict its words.

With the president’s request, the projected deficit for 2004 is near $550 billion. The Congressional Budget Office, in August, projected the deficit growing to $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years.

This is a conservative estimate, which does not take into account President Bush’s tax cuts being renewed, or the prescription drug benefit likely to pass Congress and to be signed by the president. When these factors are taken into account, the projected deficit is $3.7 trillion. That’s entirely unacceptable.

The America people have a choice. One candidate for president has managed an economy, delivering 11 years of balanced budgets while lowering his state’s overall tax burden and encouraging the creation of many high-tech, well-paying jobs and providing health care for 96 percent of Vermont’s children.

His name is Howard Dean. Visit for his vision for winning America back.

Andrew Lewis
Regent Square

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.