Quoth John Kaiser:

> You've got to be kidding me Mr. Knapp.

Nope.


> I never said Bill Clinton did, actually I said he could and did
> balance the Budget.

Except that he didn't. The "balanced budget" was smoke and mirrors.

> I did say Dean would not balance the budget

Given that Dean isn't going to be the president or a congressman,
you're probably right.

> because he is in bed with the left wing.

Dean was the most conservative candidate running on a major party
ticket last year. More conservative than Kerry and FAR more
conservative than Bush.

> Especially on environmental
> issues. A Democratically controlled congress and White House means
> Kyoto is signed, stamped and approved.

"Former Vermont governor Howard Dean has sided most closely with the
Bush administration, endorsing the National Governors Association
policy, which opposed the Kyoto Protocol unless it included mandatory
emissions cuts for developing countries. The policy recommended that
the United States 'not sign or ratify any agreement that would result
in serious harm to the U.S. economy.' Of the Democrats now running,
only Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich has stated, 'the U.S. must
ratify the Kyoto Protocol.'"

-- "Presidential Hopefuls Push Energy Alternatives, Pan Kyoto," Inter
Press Service, 06/10/2003

> Of course the Republicans have grown the government, its the game in
> Washington. Dem.'s promise big money to their voters in the form of
> S.S., welfare, etc., while Republicans try to limit increases in
> programs as much as they can without losing political capital with
> "swing voters."

That's simply historically inaccurate. Republicans grow government
programs FASTER than Democrats. They always have, they do now, and
they always will. What separates them from Democrats is that Democrats
raise taxes to cover part of the increased tab, where Republicans rely
on small tax cuts (Bush's came to a whopping 1%, phased in over ten
years) to stimulate growth that will be reflected in revenues, and on
bigger deficits.

> Do we really want to go back to the days when Bill Clinton was telling
> us, "We could give [the surpluses] all back to you and hope you spend
> it right...if you don't spend it right...[Social Security shortfalls
> will surface] just 14 years away."

Doesn't sound to good. It does, however, sound better than "I'm going
to pretend to give you a tax cut, while actually simply deferring huge
tax increases, so that you can hope you die before your grandchildren
have to dig out of the hole I'm leaving them in."

Tom Knapp