The economy: Shades of crimson |

The economy: Shades of crimson

The economy will come around. The problem is, Washington isn’t .

Treasury Secretary John Snow assures that “ample growth” and “disciplined spending” will slice in half the mounting U.S. deficit by the end of 2008. We wouldn’t pop any champagne corks yet.

“Ample growth” is within sight. “Disciplined spending,” however, is nowhere to be seen. Not for the Bush administration. And certainly not if a Democrat takes up where Bush’s spending leaves off.

Within three years Bush, the “compassionate conservative,” has evolved into Bush, the “compulsive spender.” During this period, total spending shot up nearly 14 percent. Discretionary spending is up nearly 20 percent.

Homeland security, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now Iraq’s reconstruction — each in itself an enormous commitment that the United States must honor — have contributed to a $400.5 billion deficit. But so, too, has the advancing socialism of U.S. government, and at an alarming rate.

Rather than gut the bureaucratic Education Department, Bush pumped into it the biggest expansion of federal spending in decades. He supports adding prescription drugs to Medicare, a new federal entitlement that will bankrupt our children.

He acquiesced to liberals by extending the child tax credit to those who don’t pay federal income taxes. And he backed a farm bill loaded with more pork than a pig farm.

The economy will come around. The problem is, Washington isn’t . Until the spendaholics from Bush down awake to this reality, crimson will be the shade of things to come.

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.