"Remember, a dollar returned to the taxpayer and subsequently spent will multiply itself as it circulates through the economy. Additional taxes will be collected from that dollar, and jobs will be created as consumer demand is increased. Your basic economics." While this is true, it is also true the gubbamint spending does the same. Furthermore without such spending we would simply be a third world country without a suitable infrastructure for either productive commerce or a good personal standard of living. True conservatives should be concerned with a level of spending that continues to add to the national debt. Rising debt cheats us out of capital that could be used for productive government projects. It als has an adverse effect on private capital investment. Everyone is for spending cuts and lower taxes. Yet very few want cuts in gubbamint services. Steveox says "It's my money. I should decide how it is spent" and I somewhat agree. My tax outlays last year were bigger than many of your incomes. My tax rebate was probably bigger than most of you paid in taxes. Yet my voice is no louder or stronger than yours because I pay more. The reality is that if people were truly given a direct voice on how their tax money is spent, social programs and other domestic spending would have significantly higher budgets and funds while military spending, especially during peacetime, would be curtailed. Most people want better schools rather than better bombs. Most people want an end to "pork-barrelling" unless its for their own local bacon. This is where the "Contract with America" grossly failed. Some of those Congressmen, including my own, abandoned the concept once they got into office and had the power of a Congressional vote to trade, wheel, and deal for selfish pet projects. I am happy to say we got rid of him two years later. If only more voters would do the same. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to see what would happen if people were really given a complete "check-off" option as to what percentage of their taxes would actually go to different facets of public spending. Don't be fooled, people. The so-called conservatives in Congress have no motivation to cut spending. Their appropriation votes are power. Cutting their appropriations means cutting their power to make compromises and self-serving backroom deals. As I said before, the only difference between tax-and-spend policies and borrow-and-spend policies is that borrow-and-spend tactics cost taxpayers far more. Clinton, for all hasi character faults, at least understood that and did something about it. Yet if you look at the so-called "conservative" administrations, deficit spending acutally rose at a much faster rate than when so-called "liberals" were in the White House. One could lay part of the blame on the Democrats during the Reagan years, but you can't blame them now for rasing the debt ceiling in a GOP-controlled Congress. The terrible economic performance during the LBJ administration showed you can't have both "guns and butter". If we are serious about this current war on terrorism and in "freeing" Iraq, then we need to pay the piper. If you really support our troops you will see that every General calling for more and better trained military is right. That also means paying for it. That means higher taxes. Even those "flaming liberals" at the Wall Street Journal (sarcasm here, boys) agree.