President Bush's position on the FY08 budget is that we must cut spending and avoid tax increases to balance the budget. Looking past the the rhetoric justifying all this nonsense, I'd call his position a pretty pessimistic way of thinking about government. It implies that we can't spend new money, even when solving problems requires new money. The Minnesota bridge disaster is a case in point. Notably absent from the President's response has been any pledge to increase funding for the country's roads and bridges. Instead, he promised the people of Minnesota "a better life," whatever that means. And he has maintained his veto threat of the transportation appropriations bill, which makes an all-too-modest increase in funding for roads programs. Bush is essentially admitting that, well, his hands are tied, and government just can't solve people's problems. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the bridge failure is a symptom of larger, systemic deterioration of the nation's infrastructure, and there might be more infrastructure failures to come soon. Even if those problems are pretty much plain for everyone to see, and are the government's responsibility, Bush says we just can't do anything about them because they require spending money. This is a profoundly pessimistic vision. It posits that we can't solve our problems. Or perhaps if we try to, we must accept massive cuts to other programs, or attendant tax increases that will ruin the economy, or a government that's weighed down by unsustainable deficits. That is, if you believe his rhetoric, which you are free not to. Same goes for the FDA crisis, homeland security, education, veteran's health care, and probably health care for kids. Bush and the conservative members ready to sustain his vetoes just don't think it's worth doing anything about those things. Just how lame is our government? Are Americans really willing to put up with Debbie Downer conservatism?