Spending Escalates Under GOP Watch

Washington Times ^ | 11-28-03 | Lakely, James G.

[Theodore R.]

Nondefense spending has skyrocketed under Republican control of Congress and the White House, and critics say the outlays will hit the stratosphere with the passage this week of a drug entitlement for seniors. The Congressional Budget Office reported that nondefense spending rose 7 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, nearly double the 4 percent discretionary spending caps that President Bush insisted Congress honor. Since Mr. Bush took office in 2001, nondefense spending has leapt 13 percent

[GROOVY]

I think Bush should use this to his advantage. Just like he had 5 points or however many he had last election, such as education, prescription drug plan etc. He should make the focus of one of his points of his next administration reducing the deficit. This is also a good move because as the economy improves the deficit will naturally go down anyway and he will be given credit for fulfilling one of his campaign promises..

[FirstPrinciple]

This thread will be fun to read.

[Joe Bonforte]

This thread will be fun to read.

Fun for some, I guess. Personally, I find the myriad justifications and rationalizations of the Bush-boosters and the "win at any cost" Republicans to be depressing.

[John W]

Nondefense spending has skyrocketed under Republican control of Congress and the White House, and critics say the outlays will hit the stratosphere with the passage this week of a drug entitlement for seniors.
The Congressional Budget Office reported that nondefense spending rose 7 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, nearly double the 4 percent discretionary spending caps that President Bush insisted Congress honor.
Since Mr. Bush took office in 2001, nondefense spending has leapt 13 percent — 21 percent if spending on the war on terrorism is included. And he is poised to become the first Republican president to sign into law a new federal entitlement: the $400 billion Medicare expansion to cover prescription drugs.
Sean Spicer, spokesman for Rep. Jim Nussle, Iowa Republican and the conservative chairman of the House Budget Committee, said the spending increases appear worse when lumping in the annual late-year "emergency" congressional expenditures that he said are little more than thinly veiled pork projects.
"Even without the emergencies, we're looking at [spending] numbers well above inflation, and that's definitely a concern," Mr. Spicer said.
Chris Edwards, director of fiscal policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the Bush record on spending has been a major disappointment.
"My impression of Bush is that I've never seen him give a speech in which he says government is too big and we need to cut costs," Mr. Edwards said, pointing out that President Reagan vetoed 23 bills in his first three years in office, while Mr. Bush has yet to unsheathe his veto pen.
Accepting additional spending is the price Mr. Bush pays for getting his agenda through Congress, Mr. Edwards said.
"When you have a president who has a bunch of his own spending initiatives like education and the Medicare drug bill, it makes it difficult for him to go out and say that Congress is being wasteful," he said.
Prominent conservatives are beginning to chafe about the kind of spending occurring on their watch. Nine Republican senators and 25 House Republicans voted against the Medicare drug bill, citing cost as the major reason.
The $31 billion energy bill also has stalled, largely because many in Congress object to the price tag. The president is itching to get the bill to his desk even though it is four times more expensive than what he had proposed.
Even radio host Rush Limbaugh, an unwavering booster of the president and his policies, told listeners Tuesday that after passing the Medicare bill Republicans no longer can contend they are the party of smaller government.
The White House did not return a call for comment.
Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst for the conservative Heritage Foundation, said mandatory government spending on entitlements such as Medicare will reach 11.1 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, a record high. That number will climb exponentially, he said, once seniors begin getting government-paid drugs in 2006.
"Congress often underestimates entitlements by a lot," Mr. Riedl said. "By our calculations, it will cost $2 trillion between now and 2030."
That's assuming that the program never is expanded, he said, an unlikely scenario.
When Congress created the Medicare program in 1965, the projected cost in 1990 was $9 billion. The true cost, after several expansions that came with low-balled price tags, was $67 billion, 7.4 times higher.
"The lawmakers who pushed for the Medicare drug bill never answered the question of how they would pay for it," Mr. Riedl said. "Apparently, they are leaving the $2 trillion tax hike to future congresses to figure out."
Tom Schatz, executive director of Citizens Against Government Waste, said he hopes that conservatives can bring the president and Congress "back to earth in terms of spending" if Mr. Bush wins a second term.
"We hope that this is not the legacy of the Bush administration," Mr. Schatz said. "We hope these will be aberrations that will be corrected in coming years."
A senior Republican congressional aide said many conservatives on Capitol Hill are hoping that is the case. If it isn't, Mr. Bush and the party will have some explaining to do to their political base.
"There's only so long we can be told [by the White House], 'Just keep waiting for spending restraint,' " the aide said. "Eventually you develop a credibility problem. There's a point where people say, 'We've heard that for five years and nothing's happened.' "

[Ganndy]

Personally, I find the myriad justifications and rationalizations of the Bush-boosters and the "win at any cost" Republicans to be depressing.

First things first...
First you win, then you conquer.

Without boring you with details, it takes more than 4 years for a President to be effective....how long has Bush been in office now?

Out

[MrFreedom]

One two-paragraph provision tucked deep in the 678-page bill would provide higher Medicare payments to physicians in Alaska, the home state of Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. It would cost the government $100 million between 2004 and 2008, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Aides to Stevens defended the higher payments as necessary because Alaska has a high cost of living, a dire shortage of physicians and the smallest percentage of seniors in the country, at 5.7 percent of its population. As a result, seniors have trouble finding doctors who accept Medicare, which in Alaska typically covers less than 40 percent of the cost of treatment.

[Joe Bonforte]

...it takes more than 4 years for a President to be effective...

Depends on what you mean by effective, I guess. I think Bush has already been quite effective - at increasing the size and scope of the federal government.

First you win, then you conquer.

January, 2005:

"Well, Mr. President, we've undercut the Democrats by stealing every one of their issues, and we've almost doubled federal spending in the process."

"Now we've got them where we want them! Those dastardly Democrats won't win the presidency for twenty years! So, Rove, what do we do now? Is it time to start cutting government yet?"

"Oh, no, Mr. President! That would give back all the territory we've gained! Why, the Democrats might even win in 2008! Nope, we've got to keep buying off constituencies to protect our position. We've got to guard against a Hillary Clinton presidency, sir!"

[FirstPrinciple]

Well, humor is all I have left at this point.

[Owen]

Folks,

One would be hard pressed to make a case for spending reductions to be be economically stimulative in the middle of a recession. The recovery is getting embedded. Once it does and tax revenues are up (as a result of tax cuts), then spending cuts will become the order of the day.

For now, before we have a solid economy, they are premature.

[Tamzee]

One would be hard pressed to make a case for spending reductions to be be economically stimulative in the middle of a recession. The recovery is getting embedded. Once it does and tax revenues are up (as a result of tax cuts), then spending cuts will become the order of the day.

Well stated, thank you.

[Consort]

Even radio host Rush Limbaugh, an unwavering booster of the president and his policies...

Not true. He wavers. Rush doesn't like either of the Bush Presidents.

[Glenn]

One would be hard pressed to make a case for spending reductions to be be economically stimulative in the middle of a recession. The recovery is getting embedded. Once it does and tax revenues are up (as a result of tax cuts), then spending cuts will become the order of the day.

Swill. If the spending of the government is "stimulative", then the government has too much money to spend. And just how the hell does an "embedded" recovery produce more money for the government when the tax cuts aren't fully enabled and spending is going nowhere but up?

[Kay Soze]

"My impression of Bush is that I've never seen him give a speech in which he says government is too big and we need to cut costs," Mr. Edwards said, pointing out that President Reagan vetoed 23 bills in his first three years in office, while Mr. Bush has yet to unsheathe his veto pen."

AND

" Even radio host Rush Limbaugh, an unwavering booster of the president and his policies, told listeners Tuesday that after passing the Medicare bill Republicans no longer can contend they are the party of smaller government."

[John W]

"I don't know how anybody can try to 'spin' the above fact as good (or even neutral) -- unless they are the bottest of Bushbots or the liberalest of liberal democrats."

Its not easy to spin.Thats why threads with a headline such as this don't garner a lot of posts.

[templar]

He should make the focus of one of his points of his next administration reducing the deficit. This is also a good move because as the economy improves the deficit will naturally go down anyway and he will be given credit for fulfilling one of his campaign promises..

That would have to assume that the increase in government spending has not (will not be) responsible for (any of) the improvement in the economy. If economic improvement is fueled in any significant degree by increased government spending then any reduction in that increased sepnding will have a negative effect on the economy.

[templar]

What the hell is going on?

You are being purchased (bought, sold, maybe both).

[FirstPrinciple]

I thought you make spending reductions especially in a bad economy. In a good economy, there is enough to go around for everyone. In a bad economy, one needs to economize. Bad economy is the best friend for fiscal conservatives, because you have the best reason for spending cuts.

[billbears]

I'd laugh but if it weren't so true. It's to the point it doesn't matter what letter is beside their name, they're going to spend to buy off voting blocks