Nostalgia

[archerships]

Sigh. Sometimes I wax nostalgic for the fiscal conservatism of the Clinton presidency..

"President Bush will seek a big increase in the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts...Administration officials, including White House budget experts, said that the president would propose an increase of $15 million to $20 million for the coming fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. That would be the largest increase in two decades and far more than the most recent increases approved by Congress, about $500,000 for 2003 and $5 million for this year...."

Comments

[kenmora.livejournal.com]

I'm sure this is a two-pronged election year deception.

#1 it will, he hopes, garner support from the traditionally liberal arts-supporting community.

#2 whatever miniscule amount of increase, if any, this brings to the NEA will surely have conservative content strings attached that will seek to undermine the NEA's independence.

Re:

[crasch.livejournal.com]

#1. Probably. But he's nuts if he thinks the NEA's cheerleaders are going to vote for him in any significant numbers.

#2. Maybe so. But he's pissed off a lot more conservatives who just want the NEA shut down.

[kittles.livejournal.com]

I know. Sad *and* scary, huh.

Re:

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yep. I'm flabbergasted how any conservatives can support the man. One little war, and they abandon all their principles.

[chutzpahgirl.livejournal.com]

What do you have against the NEA? We're spending how much on the Mars probe?

Re:

[ehintz.livejournal.com]

Hey, if we're gonna pick on something, lets pick on Iraq/Afghanistan, and Halliburton. At least from the Mars probes we'll get some scientific knowledge, and perhaps get people thinking more seriously about getting off this rock (which, given the rate at which we start wars and the technological advances in new and creative ways to kill each other, could ultimately very well mean the difference between survival and extinction of the species).

Re:

[crasch.livejournal.com]

I'm against the Mars probe too. The increase in the NEA's funding is significant because a) it's been a prominent target for elimination by conservatives for years b) given the fact that he has control of the presidency and Congress, he could eliminate it with little cost to himself c) despite b), instead of eliminating it, he's chosen instead to increase its funding. Thus, he reveals himself yet again as an authoritarian hypocrite, pandering to whoever he thinks will help get him elected. And a bad panderer at that, since the NEA's cheerleaders probably aren't going to change their minds about him, and it really pisses off his base.

[new-iconoclast.livejournal.com]

Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot?

I don't get this guy, I really don't.

[twaj.livejournal.com]

Don't forget the 170 million bucks he earmarked for teen abstinance programs... I mean; there's wasting money: he could give the money as loans to friends that he knows won't pay him back or just shove the money up his ass. That's deplorable, but at least the money isn't going to bad things. When Democrats throw money around, they'll do things like pay Harvard millions to conduct a study into something that could help society that wouldn't be politically feasible, thus lining the pockets of professors and research departments. The Republicans spend money on guns and Jesus.