Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential front-runner George W. Bush, in his first television ads, boasts that since becoming Texas governor he has held down the growth in state spending to about 2.7%.
Rival Steve Forbes charges false advertising: Actual growth has been 36%. Moreover, the new state budget runs a deficit.
So who's right? Both, it turns out, depending on how you measure. Mr. Bush's claim is closest to what most nonpartisan budget analysts would calculate. But that's true only by using an accounting approach that Mr. Bush's fellow Republicans in Congress used to condemn as Democratic "Beltway budgeting" -- and Mr. Forbes derides as "Clintonian."
GOP Leaders Fear Repeat of '96
Mr. Forbes says he's just trying to engage Mr. Bush -- "the tax-and-spend candidate," he calls Mr. Bush -- in a debate on the issues. But the party establishment fears that this assault signals a repeat of Mr. Forbes's negative campaign in 1996 that bloodied Republicans' ultimate nominee, former Sen. Robert Dole. Democrats, meanwhile, are happy just to watch Mr. Bush squirm under the same sort of attack he once levied to oust Texas's former governor, Democrat Ann Richards.
In fact, Mr. Bush's place on both sides in this budget battle is a case study in how much easier it is for an out-of-office politician to lob campaign charges than it is for an incumbent to defend a real record.
![[Chart: The Bush Era Budgets]](http://interactive.wsj.com/public/resources/images/bush11051999004907.gif)
Mr. Forbes's claim that Texas spending has ballooned about 36% since Mr. Bush took office in 1995, for which he cites state newspaper accounts, is based on the difference between the state's $35.8 billion budget in fiscal year 1995 and its $48.6 billion in appropriations for fiscal 2000 that began Sept. 1.
Mr. Bush calculates just 2.7% growth, largely because he adjusts for inflation and population growth. Simply put, government has to spend more money just to provide the same services.
Responding to Forbes campaign demands that he pull the ad, which is dubbed "Successful Leader," the Texas governor said last week in Iowa that his budgets can't be measured simply by looking at the starting and ending figures. For "an honest comparison" of "apples-to-apples," he argued animatedly, the state's higher costs and bigger caseloads for state services have to be taken into account.
By that yardstick, "I did slow the growth of government spending," he insisted several times. "I did just what I promised."
The Forbes campaign dismisses such reasoning. "A 36% increase in spending is a 36% increase in spending. Case closed!" declares spokesman Greg Mueller.
'A Certain Irony Here'
And so it was for Gov. Bush when he was Candidate Bush back in 1994. Then, his campaign blasted the incumbent, Ms. Richards, for an "explosive" 47% growth in state spending. Her side, citing inflation and population growth, put the figure in the single digits. "There's a certain irony here," says Ms. Richards's former spokesman, Chuck McDonald. "Bush is faced with the same charge his campaign was making against Richards, and his response now is the same one we had."
Meanwhile, congressional Republicans, with whom Mr. Bush would have to work if he becomes president, have had a similar change of heart.
When they took over the House in 1995 for the first time in 40 years, the Republicans trumpeted that the days of "Beltway budgeting" were over: They would no longer build in increases for anticipated inflation and an expanding population. "Nobody else does this," said new House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich of Ohio at the time, though most businesses do project increases in payroll, benefits, supplies and the like. "The whole deck is stacked against those who want to stop the flow of red ink," added Mr. Kasich, who has joined the Bush camp now that he has folded his own presidential bid.
The congressional Republicans quickly learned the pitfalls between budget rhetoric and reality. As the Republicans put together their first budget as the majority, Democrats slammed them for cutting school lunches for poor children and Medicare for the elderly. Republicans insisted they had actually increased spending. But the amounts wouldn't keep up with projected costs and caseload, making the increases cuts.
Turnabout by GOP in Congress
Since those first heady days, Republicans have largely abandoned so-called freeze budgeting. Congressional and White House budget analysts typically build inflation adjustments into annual budget projections for most programs. They also account for population growth for the big entitlement programs -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
In the 1997 balanced-budget agreement, Congress and President Clinton put lower limits on spending through 2002. But they have broken those caps in the prolonged negotiations over spending for the current fiscal year that began Oct. 1.
Down in Texas, the nonpartisan and nonprofit Center for Public Policy Priorities also takes inflation and demographics into account, and puts the growth in state spending in Mr. Bush's five years at 7.2%, for an annual average of 1.8%. "All state services ... are affected by changes in costs and population," says executive director Dianne Stewart. "It's really irresponsible to look at spending in nominal terms from year to year."
The center has analyzed 40 years of Texas budgets, under five governors. Except for the first term of GOP Gov. Bill Clements from 1979 to 1983, when tumbling oil revenues flattened the state, "the growth of the state budget under George Bush is actually smaller when you take into consideration both inflation and population growth than under any governor," says Ms. Stewart.
When federal funds to the state are subtracted, she adds, "state spending has actually gone down."
But for Texas's new fiscal year, Texas spending is up more than 5%, mostly as a result of a boost in state aid for education and teacher salaries that Mr. Bush supported. The two-year budget for 2000-2001 is $98.1 billion, and the state's comptroller, a Republican, has just notified state leaders that revenues for that biennium will be $95.9 billion. That would suggest a $2.2 billion deficit.
But Mr. Bush's budget director, Albert Hawkins, notes that Texas has a nearly $4 billion surplus, leaving the budget within balance as the state constitution requires. But even without that surplus, with just a little finagling, Mr. Bush's office has wiped out any red ink in the current budget. He subtracts $2.35 billion in local property-tax relief that was called for in this year's education-aid law. That brings the budget for 2000-2001 just under the $95.9 billion in anticipated revenues.
Mr. Bush's reasoning is that the state raised its share of school spending because local districts were expected to cut property taxes by a similar amount. But after a 1997 Bush initiative for property-tax relief, many school districts held taxes constant or raised them.
Even the current Republican lieutenant governor acknowledged that the
1997 tax relief was "rather illusory." According to some state officials,
there's early evidence that the same pattern is being repeated with Mr.
Bush's 1999 tax cut.
By that yardstick, "I did slow the growth of government spending," he insisted several times. "I did just what I promised."
Good golly. Any Freeper not bearing some secret lust for Monica would take Forbes' side in this "debate." Bush is clearly putting a Clintonesque spin on poor governing.
All of us would want to tar and feather Clinton for the same explanations: it will be interesting to see how Freepers respond to this.
In all things, charity--
John Collings
Texas ranks 50th out of 50 states in per capita spending. THAT's the important statistic.
Forbes is grasping at straws.
"In fact, Mr. Bush's place on both sides in this budget battle is a case study in how much easier it is for an out-of-office politician to lob campaign charges than it is for an incumbent to defend a real record."
What mularkey!!! It's only difficult "for an incumbent to defend a real record" if they've allowed spending to creep out of control. I'm not sure Texas' five-year Budget Creep can be described as "out of control," but it certainly ain't 2.7% per year. For Dubyuh's folks to paint this as mud-slinging or nasty politics is simply disingenuous. Carry on, Mr. Forbes!!
MUD
I need to go along with Forbes on this one. If you follow the Bush/Richards line of reasoning, it seems to me that serious tax cutting can never happen. If your plan is to always raise spending by at least the inflation rate and the rate of population growth, there just can't ever be enough slack in the budget to give a nice permanent tax cut.
If you follow the Bush/Richards line of reasoning, it seems to me that serious tax cutting can never happen.
Bush has cut taxes. Twice.
Can you name a state where spending has NOT grown in the last six years?
It would help Mr. Forbes' credibility if he would reveal his record of fiscal restraint during his time in government serv......oh, he's never held office before.
Never mind.
Bush has cut taxes. Twice.
Perhaps you didn't notice this from the article.
Even the current Republican lieutenant governor acknowledged that the 1997 tax relief was "rather illusory." According to some state officials, there's early evidence that the same pattern is being repeated with Mr. Bush's 1999 tax cut.
And anyway, the main fact of the article remains that Bush used the same technique against Richards on spending as Forbes is using against him now.
But even using Bush's spin it doesn't sound too good. Is there a reason for government spending to grow 2.7% even after accounting for inflation and population growth?
It would help Mr. Forbes' credibility if he would reveal his record of fiscal restraint during his time in government serv......oh, he's never held office before.
Many would consider it a plus that he's not been sucking at the teat.
Like I said:
"All of us would want to tar and feather Clinton for the same explanations: it will be interesting to see how Freepers respond to this."
When Clinton talks like a weasle, all Freepers scream; when Bush does it, many Freepers applaud. That's the point I was making. (Party politics at its best; principled politics at its worst.)
In all things, charity--
John Collings
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |