Posted by Dale Wong

Monday, September 15, 2003

Democrats are noted for their love of government spending.

That's why it's ironic that some of them are opposing President Bush's request for $87 billion to support homeland security and the war on terrorism. This article is by Chad Allen and appeared on the website of The Washington Dispatch.

-o-

Last Sunday night, President George W. Bush addressed the nation regarding the War on Terror. In that speech, the president said, ''Our strategy in Iraq will require new resources. We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan. I will soon submit to Congress a request for

$87 billion.''

Since the President outlined the needs for further funding in the war, Democrats have launched a massive assault on the spending proposal. Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, emphatically stated, ''This may not be Vietnam, but it sure smells like it. And every time I see those bills coming down for the money, it’s costing like Vietnam too.''

Not to be outdone, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cried, ''Already facing a nearly half-trillion-dollar deficit, American taxpayers deserve to know how this spending will affect our ability to address the unmet needs in our country.''

Memo to Sens. Harkin & Pelosi, along with other democrats having a fiscal tirade over Bush’s proposal: Stop talking until you have at least a miniscule idea of controlled spending. Your party adores increased government spending as long as it’s not for the defense of our country through the use of our military.

Furthermore, Senator Harkin’s claim that the spending on this war is comparable to Vietnam is so lined with ignorance that he has embarrassed himself and his party. President Bush’s call for $87 billion in additional funds for the war equates to a mere 0.8% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Combine the $87 billion with the $79 billion previously allocated for the war and you have a ''whopping''

1.5% of GDP. Estimates put the cost of the Vietnam War at about 12% of GDP. So if spending on the War on Terror continues on the same pace for the next eight years, then the mathematically challenged senator may have an argument.

The Democratic Party loathes even the concept of increased military spending, as evidenced during the Clinton Administration.

According to a Heritage Foundation study, Clinton nearly cut the U.S.

Army divisions in half and cut total U.S. Naval ships by roughly 40%.

While the Clinton Administration believed the world was becoming safer with less need for a strong military, the opposite was occurring, a fact we know all too well today.

The feelings of the Democratic Party and its spokespersons regarding the military are clear. Democrats cringe at the fact that our military is the most dominant and powerful in the world. The Democrats fear our military superiority and the fact that we are the only superpower in the world, as witnessed by a comment from former Clinton Administration Secretary of State Madeline Albright. In fact, it were up to the staunchly socialist wing of the party--which incidentally seems to be growing and includes Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative Dennis Kucinich among many others--we wouldn’t have a military, or at least our military would be governed by the cowardly lions of the United Nations.

Our service men and women would essentially be relegated to becoming unarmed security guards.

Is it any wonder that our military men and women vote overwhelmingly Republican? Doesn’t it say something when those who are most familiar with combat and protecting our nation trust the GOP far more than Democrats to properly fund their work and to deploy them wisely? Look at the responses from the nine democratic presidential contenders at their recent debate when they were asked about President Bush’s proposal for increased military spending. Each candidate couldn’t slash, cut, or eliminate the spending quickly enough in comments, oftentimes to the applause of the numerous peaceniks among the crowd.

Chad Allen is a conservative living in America's heartland. He writes political and social commentary and has been published in Insight Magazine and various online magazines.

To read the entire article on the Internet, go to: