Although I generally tend to be conservative, I must admit some of the things I see going on in W's administration are a bit unsettling to me.

First, there's the budget.

You know, it's as if a conservative can get onlyÊhalf of the equation right.

Remember Ronald Reagan? What is he remembered for? Deficits. Why? Because of his tax cuts? No, because of his spending.

The Reagan tax cuts worked masterfully at stimulating the economy and generating more revenue for the treasury. In fact, revenue streaming to the Treasury grew each year and topped $1 trillion for the first time in the nation's history during the Reagan administration.

Wonderful, you say. Yes, that part of it - the revenue side - was OK, but the other half of the equation was out of whack.

That's the spending side.

Government spent every dime and then some.

I see W falling into the same trap. He enacted tax cuts to stimulate the economy. The economy is now stimulated. It's a bit early to say for sure, but my guess - based on the collective guesses of right-coast economists - is that growth can be sustained, jobs will be created and tax revenues will rise.

Great, you say. Yes, that part of it is OK. But the other half of the equation is out of whack.

Are you picking up on a pattern, here?

Only difference is, it's worse under W.

Government spending has literally exploded under W. That's not a good thing, no matter how conservative you are. And this despite a campaign promise for smaller government.

Discretionary spending - that's the kind that must be approved by Congress - was up 12 percent in the fiscal year that just ended. It's up 27 percent over the last two years.

Remember the Clinton years, when the spendy Democrat was in the White House? The average spending increase during the 1990s was 2.4 percent. I'll be honest. I whined about that.

I know, I know.

Military spending is up, you say. And that's true. But military spending amounts to only about half of all discretionary spending. It went up 17 percent last year.

That means everything else when up 8 percent.

That's just wrong and unacceptable.

Remember the White House goal of holding spending increases to 4 percent per year? (Which, by the way, I think is too much.) Fahgeddabahdit.

It's almost like W lets Congress spend whatever it wants so he can spend whatever he wants.

I know how that works. I'll encourage my wife to buy a couple pair of shoes before I mention the cool new guitar gizmo I want.

I understand how government works. I know that the president can't spend a dime. It's Congress that holds the purse strings. And I tend to blame or credit Congress where the budget is concerned.

But the majority in Congress belongs to the alleged conservatives.

And W is a conservative. He has the bully pulpit. He has the veto. He has majorities in both houses of Congress.

He could put their feet in the fire. But he hasn't.

And for his troubles, he will go down in history as the president who presided over the biggest deficits ever.

Another thing that bothers me is the Justice Department.

I read a column by Jonathan Turley of the Los Angeles Times.

He spells out how John Ashcroft and the Justice Department resurrected an arcane law from 1872 to indict some Greenpeace protesters and the Greenpeace organization.

Now, no one has ever accused me of being a tree-huggin' environmentalist, but this thing really bothers me.

Here's the deal.

Back in April 2002, Greenpeace led an effort to stop the illegal importing of mahogany. Greenpeace believed that a ship was involved in the illegal import of mahogany, so some of its members decided to do one of their protests.

Greenpeace followed the ship in clearly marked boats. A couple of its members boarded the ship carrying a banner that read, "President Bush, Stop Illegal Logging."

OK, this is pretty routine stuff, well, mundane, really for Greenpeace.

The protesters wore Greenpeace jackets, identified themselves as Greenpeace members and allowed themselves to be arrested. The wood was unloaded and life went on.

Again, very routine. Very mundane.

Until 15 months later, when Justice indicted the entire Greenpeace organization under that aforementioned law from 1872 that prohibits what the law calls "sailor-mongering." Apparently, circa 1870, "harlots" would board ships and lure sailor to shore with liquor and, well, companionship.

Of course, when the ship was ready to sail, there was no one to sail it, so somebody figured there should be a law against "sailor-mongering."

And even though there was really no evidence that the Greenpeace members were "sailor-mongering," it seems Justice went ahead with the indictment anyway.

Of course, the ramifications for Greenpeace are dire. If convicted, it could lose its tax-exempt status and be required to submit regular activity reports to the government. Pretty much the end of Greenpeace.

I guess Greenpeace members shouldn't have unfurled that "Bush: The Toxic Texan. Don't Mess With The Earth" banner at the president's ranch right after his inauguration.

I know Greenpeace can be a thorn in the side of conservatives, but really, isn't that its constitutional right?

And even though I may disagree with a group's views, I fully defend their right to have them, and to protest against a government that doesn't share them.

Passive resisters expect to face misdemeanor charges, but a federal indictment of their organization seems like a bit much. Yes, even to a conservative like me.

So while W assails us with deficits, Ashcroft assaults our civil liberties.

Conservatives are supposed to stand for smaller, less intrusive government. I do.

But with the current conservatives, government seems to be getting bigger and more intrusive. [[In-content Ad]]