Not the intended effect?
Cato-at-liberty » Worse Than Hillary? For more than 15 years now, Hillary has been the incarnation of Big Government. She votes with taxpayers only 9 percent of the time, according to the National Taxpayers Union. She calls herself a “government junkie.” She says, “There is no such thing as other people’s children” and calls for ”a consensus of values and a common vision” for 300 million people. She was best known in her White House years for heading a team of 500 bureaucrats organized into 15 committees and 34 working groups to recreate in 100 days one-seventh of the American economy. After health care, she told the New York Times, her next project would be “redefining who we are as human beings in the post-modern age.” Or, as the Times put it, “She wants to make things right.”
Wow. While less than enthusiastic about the "Big Government" part, I did not know that Hillary Clinton was so effective. From the above, it seems she can really get things done.
On the flip side, what are our choices as voters? In this decade, the Republicans in power have acted as wild fans of "Big Government" and poorly run expensive foreign adventures. Given the record increases in government spending (and debit) under Republican leadership, clearly the Republicans are not the party of "small government". So ... our choice is "Big Government" Republicans or "Big Government" Democrats?
Can we have another choice, please?