>but the premise was that the Gov is being strangled. It
>isn't.
Not by the numbers. But you also say:
>My objection is the rhetorical and political impact. As
>with Clinton's anti-deficit rhetoric, it reinforces a public discourse
>that is inimical to domestic policy initiatives.
Which is more what I meant to get at. With every cycle it's harder to even talk about government as expected to do anything domestically besides law enforcement. And with anti-terrorism that mind-set goes global.