- Murphy
3 hours ago
- Murphy
- Murphy
- Murphy
- Murphy
There's a point that's probably worth raising with our scofflaw Republican friends. All of their arguments now amount to excuses, like those of a small child caught stealing cookies:Read the whole piece, its perfect.
…
The point is that they're irrelevant. It's the mid-life version of 'He hit me first!' or 'He called me a name!' or other such foolery.
No presidential advisor should ever disclose the identity of a covert agent at the CIA. That doesn't require elaboration.
- Murphy
- Murphy
The Weidenbaum Center has been tracking regulatory spending since the 1970s ... During that decade, regulatory spending grew nearly 9 percent a year in real terms.Nicklaus is correct that a great deal of the budget increases in the past 5 years have been in the defense arena, but the Department of Homeland Security doesn't qualify as a regulatory agency the way the FEC does.
That growth shrank to 2.2 percent in the 1980s before rising to 4.2 percent in the 1990s. Interestingly enough, the biggest regulatory ramp-up during that period happened under Bush's father, from 1989 to 1993. Ronald Reagan cut spending during his first term, and Bill Clinton presided over a relatively modest increase of 3.2 percent a year.
Since 2000, regulatory spending has grown at a 6.5 percent annual rate. To be fair to President Bush, the biggest increase has been in the Department of Homeland Security, which had to respond to a new and unanticipated threat after Sept. 11, 2001. Some people also would say that large budget boosts for the Securities and Exchange Commission were a necessary response to a different kind of threat that became apparent after Enron and WorldCom.
- Murphy
- Murphy
- Murphy