A country has to choose fairly between two options to spend its limited resources: for guns (through defense spending), or for the people (through spending for jobs, education, health care and other domestic priorities).

Yesterday, President Bush chose guns and stiffed the American people.

He vetoed a bill that funds cancer research. Investments in our schools. Job training. Protection for American workers. And in its place, he signed a $459 billion defense spending bill.

There's rarely been a clearer example of President's failed priorities. Stand up for America's working families

President Bush called the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Bill "irresponsible."

I ask President Bush:

What's irresponsible about making sure all of America's children receive a decent education? What's irresponsible about seeking a cure for cancer, so that it no longer claims mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters before their time?

If anything is irresponsible, it's the President's misguided priorities.

Issues like whether or not the U.S. should endorse torture shouldn't even have to be debated. Neither should funding for education, health care, and medical research. But that's exactly what's happened under the Bush Administration.

So how do we fix it? By electing a filibuster-proof majority Democratic majority in the Senate. A veto-proof Democratic majority brought us the Civil Rights Act. It brought us the Voting Rights Act. It brought us the Social Security Act.

It is time for serious change.

Yea,yea,yea.now ur talking aint a lot of diff. n bush and nixon.

Or Bush and Hillary Clinton. Both would (and did) say anything to get elected. Both would (and did) show a total disregard for those who voted for them(Bush as President, Clinton as NY Senator).

Is that the same tax and spend democratic (should say socialist) majority that then started taxing social security and filling every financial bill with pork barrel projects to ensure their reelection? Funny when the democrats were in the minority and they used the fillibuster to stall everything it was an ok deal, now if the republicans use it, the democrats cry foul.

"There is no example in the last quarter century of a large complex economy that has been successful with high taxes. The Western Europenas have seen their standard of living decline by 30% in a little more than a generation because of their high taxes. The U.S. meanwhile has out performed the competition over the last quarter century." A quote from Jonah Goldberg's column in todays paper.

Agreed, Southern.

They are both equally dishonest. And that's pretty bad to say that you are equal to Nixon in dishonesty. The difference is that Nixon, despite his paranoia and dishonesty, had a clue about how to run the country.

this demococratic congress has had no problem spending and adding incresed spending to the budget .

Gonna take a lot more than just electing a new president to make this country better. The president is a small contributer to the corruption that is occuring in our government. In fact, in order for the government to even be corrupt all three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) have to be corrupt due to our brilliant system of checks and balances. I think that everyone in every office needs to be voted out and replaced. And I think its unfortunate that its usually only wealthy people that can even afford to run for office in the first place. I totally agree with you, some serious changes are gonna need to happen. Unfortunately it's not our governments responsibility to make sure the country is being run correctly, it's the citizen's. This is why we have the right to bare arms. This is also why the declaration of independance states that if at anytime government starts interfering with our right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that "it is the RIGHT of the American people to alter or abolish it". I've given this a lot of thought after i got back from the war. We, as citizens, are JUST as responsible for what goes on in our country as our leaders.

-Sorry, i tend to rant...

It might help a bit if ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS were limited to two terms. You've got guys (Hi Ted Kennedy) who's taken elected office and made a career out of it. After two terms, it seems they learn more and more ways of being crooked . If the President of the United States is limited to two terms, why shouldn't other elected officials?

Careful Drivinmenutz, people might start thinking you are replacing blind party politics with common sense. O_o

I agree completely. No political position was intented to be a career. That's why congressmen didn't even get paid in the beginning. When they are allowed to keep serving and make it a career then they start thinking about votes more than they do about doing what's right.

Heaven forbid.....

"No American is safe while congress is in session" Will Rogers

Drivinmenutz and Knox you are both absolutely right.

I get concerned when people say that the government "running" the country poorly. That's a sign that people are forgetting that it's not, and never was, the government's job to "run" this country. It's their job to protect the citizen's and the rights on the citizens. As for everything else, they were always supposed to stay out of it.

Really i think we havent had a decent president since kennedy

The repubs have had their chance to run this country into the ground, and dammit they did an excellent job of it. Thanks to baby shrub and his dictorial control on this country, it will take many many years to recover from the rape of America by the repubs. Now I do not usually agree totally with either side, dem or repub but today as I stand and look at what is happening here now, I know that something will have to change.

i blame the dems 2 4 letting the fascists run wild on capitol hill

just an early version of clinton.....and a dirty family as well so yeah a real good guy.... NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do away the the parties. This Democrat this and Republican that is nonsense. When and who thought of this anyway? Why two? Why not more than that?
Why any at all?
Why not "the people"? And let it be voted by the people for the people? Parties split those that otherwise may have come together.
Kat

knoxman I totally agree with term limits. When freshman go to washington they are usually all for doing whatever they feel is best for us. Then the majority lifers that are in thier get ahold of him and stops his zeal for his country. term limits would not put the fear of reelection on thier minds so much that they feel they need to satisfy lobbiests sent thier by the rich.. Blessings.. Miles

You have to take the money out of it!

Distribute Political Contributions evenly amongst all candidates, or eliminate them all together, and use that damn dollar Ive been contributing every year when I do my taxes!!