ATLANTA (CNN) - When asked what he would change to avoid a repeat of the 2006 Republican defeat in congressional elections, Arizona Sen. John McCain was clear - four times.
"Spending, spending, spending, spending, which led to corruption," he said.
"We let spending get out of control. We presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society [domestic reforms of the 1960s]. And our constituents and our Republican [supporters] became dispirited and disenchanted."
The mid-term elections gave control of Congress to the Democrats, who have since become a political thorn in President's Bush's domestic and international agenda.
McCain pointed to a $233 million bridge to an island in Alaska with 50 people on it as the "tipping point."
Mccain says he'd cut funding, yet he is co sponsor of an immigration bill that will cost taxpayers trillions. It will also throw our social security into the minus by 2.6 trillion dollars. We have checked his voting record he whom runs on his war record normally votes against bills that favor military members, veterans, especially disabled veterans. I don't trust him, and think he is more a tax and spend democrat. Who is owned and operated by La Raza and Lulac
France is deporting illegals , if they can why can't we???????????
McCain, Kennedy and King George want amnesty for law breakers and we will pay trillions. Mccain can not be trusted he cares more about illegal alians then he does for the constitution and american citizens. Go Ron Paul!
Yeah, spending got us into trouble. And who were those behind the spending? Our elected officials in Congress, including old, maverick John McCain. He's as responsible as anyone for runaway spending and the Republicans' tarnished reputations.
Spending is the reason for the 2006 republican defeat? Lets get real, john, the war in Iraq was the reason. Any idiot could figure this out.
Is there a way to help people understand that federal pork hurts our nation in more than a couple ways? Yet, in local newspapers and TV news reports, it's considered a great victory when states win federfal aid for storm disasters, farm relief, and major building/road projects? In the current system, states are pitted against eachotehr for federal money, and the result is NOT ONLY higher federal taxes, BUT ALSO more federal control over state issues, and the states are basically giving it away.
Incumbent governors, senators, and representatives largely campaign on how much money they've squeezed from the federal treasury and brougt home to their states. We don't call it 'pork' in this case, but what else is it? WE only call it pork during national Congress debates about deficit spending.
Here's a novel idea. How about lower [or even none at all] federal income taxes, and we all pay MORE state taxes [income, sales, property, etc.]? People balk at any tax increase, but I have to admit I would gladly more double my state taxes if I paid none to the feds. This is not a distaste for WAshington as much as it is that our federal system is supposed to uphold the sovereignty of the states. And what we must acknowledge is that, if states aren't relying on federal aid, then they don't have to conform with as many federal laws. This also frees up the feds to do what the Constitution suggests they do: make treaties [State dept], defend our borders [Defense], police interstate affairs [Justice], and adjudicate interstate legal battles [Supreme Court: which, by the way, should be far less zealous to take appeals from state court systems]. Let's hear it for the federal system!!!
The USA is broke, busted. Much like the USSR went broke fighting in the Middle East. Who are we borrowing from to fight in Iraq? Isn't this increasing debt a huge problem? While other countries improve their highways, mass transit, develop alternative fuel, we fall apart in neglect and amass huge debt.