Skip to comments.
Bush's Budget for 2005 Seeks to Rein In Domestic Costs
NY Times ^
| January.4,2004
| ROBERT PEAR
Posted on 01/03/2004 2:17:20 PM PST by Reagan Man
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
To: Reagan Man
Mr. Bush faces criticism from conservatives, who say he has presided over a big increase in federal spending, and liberals, who say his tax cuts have converted a large budget surplus to a deficit. I am one such conservative/unappeaser! Those unhappy with the status quo move the world while others run. We moved the party back to the right.
Brian M. Riedl, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said: "President Bush is not focusing on his fiscal conservative base right now. He's trying to position himself in between conservatives in Congress and the Democratic Party. It may be good politics, but it's bad policy, a lost opportunity to get runaway government spending under control."
White House officials deny that they have acquiesced in a domestic spending spree.
This is great news for conservatives.
21
posted on
01/03/2004 5:33:33 PM PST
by
Kay Soze
(Fiscally - whats the difference between Hillary and W?)
To: jagrmeister
>>>Cutting spending is a political impossibility.Spoken like a true "Pragmatist".
>>>Reagan could not do it.
Reagan did cut federal spending. He lowered discreationary spending in his first three years in office. If Reagan had a GOP majority control like PresBush has, he would have cut government a lot more.
>>>Bush cannot do it.
Bush doesn't want to do it. Yet. I've been holding out for some serious downsizing in a second Bush-Cheney term and this may be an early indicator of things to come.
I do not recommend draconian spending cuts and support political incrementaism. Incentives given for good management efforts are fine with me, but that only scrapes the surface. To kick start some serious fiscal responsibility in the federal government, I would support a spending freeze for one year.
Politics is a slow process, but at the rate that Social Security and Medicare are growing, before we know it these two entitlement programs will consume half of the federal budget. Right now SS and Medicare eat up 1/3rd of the federal budget and "Human Resources" --- aka. SOCIAL SPENDING --- consumes over 66% of the federal budgetary expenditures. There needs to be real reform of these two out of control federal programs, before its too late.
22
posted on
01/03/2004 5:52:46 PM PST
by
Reagan Man
(The few, the proud, the conservatives.)
To: Biblebelter
>>>When is government going to get productive and efficient and start laying off workers?I think PresBush and the GOP Congress will have a rare opportunity in the next several years to start to make the federal governemnt more efficient and effective in its operations. There must be a serious effort made in a second Bush-Cheney term to reduce the high levels of waste, fraud and abuse that currently exist in the federal bureaucracy. Before its too late.
23
posted on
01/03/2004 5:58:59 PM PST
by
Reagan Man
(The few, the proud, the conservatives.)
To: Reagan Man
I'd like to see steady REDUCTIONS in the budget of 3 percent by President Compassionate Conservative.
24
posted on
01/03/2004 6:04:56 PM PST
by
xrp
To: Reagan Man
Duh. We called this last year.
Spend on National Security first, foremost, and much.
Cite the deficit as a reason to cut the fat.
If anybody was hanging around and waiting for the remaining seven appropriations to get their fat for their district, they can wait until hell freezes over.
This is an election year - nobody will get fat - especially any Democrats helping his opposition.
Anybody who opposes this will be told, "What is the alternative? Do you want your taxes raised?" Dems will have to run on raising taxes.
And people call W. an idiot. Wish I was an idiot, too.
To: KantianBurke
And? You oppose this? If so, why?
To: Reagan Man
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_090903/content/institute.guest.html The facts disagrees with you. Reagan raised discretionary spending in his first 3 years by 6.8%. Don't believe me, look the chart over which breaks it down by department.
I agree that Medicare and SS are the big ones that need to be dealt with. Ideally we can return the obligation to the individual through personal retirement accounts.
27
posted on
01/03/2004 6:10:10 PM PST
by
jagrmeister
(I'm not a conservative. I don't seek to conserve, I seek to reform.)
To: Reagan Man
They have to - in the next two years, 50% of all Federal employees will be eligible for retirement.
He has the opportunity to allow those positions to go unfilled. An opportunity we won't see again.
To: Beelzebubba
None, hopefully. A " surplus " only means that the populace is being OVER TAXED .
To: Kay Soze
We moved the party back to the right. You need to get it back to the center, first.
30
posted on
01/03/2004 6:14:10 PM PST
by
xrp
To: Biblebelter
Excellent point, Biblebelter! I work for the Federal government, and my agency could reduce personnel by 50 percent if rules on firing Federal employees were changed and managers were given incentives to cut costs.
We have employees who brag about how little work they do. Something has to be changed.
(And if downsizing comes and I'm one of the ones laid off, so be it. Being on the Federal payroll is a privilege and a responsibility, not a right.)
To: billbears
How is increasing expenditures reducing government? It is reducing the relative size as opposed to the absolute size. If government increases at 3% and GDP increases at 5%, then the government gets small relative to GDP.
Of course, I would love to see someone reduce the actual size of government, but I doubt the political will to do it exists in anyone with the actual ability to do it.
To: xrp
Funny!
But you know as well as I the power of this forum and I intend to continue to use it to push the party back to center and then right.
Even at the ire of many so called conserrvatives that are here.
33
posted on
01/03/2004 6:22:42 PM PST
by
Kay Soze
(Fiscally - whats the difference between Hillary and W?)
To: pageonetoo
Send the corrupters to a juvenile disciplinary center, and keep them there until they are 'trained'!I liked your ideas until this last sentence here. The problem is that such correcting centers don't seem to be very effective in correcting youth. For delinquent (sp?) young people, I personally would prescribe either:
1. Catholic school (if there's nuns)
2. Boot camp
To: jagrmeister
>>>The facts disagrees with you. Reagan raised discretionary spending in his first 3 years by 6.8%. Don't believe me, look the chart over which breaks it down by department.You better read the chart on Rush`s website again. The facts back me up 100%. You're wrong.
There were actually two different CATO Institute articles and two different sets of charts on this subject matter. One was released in April 2003 and was called On Spending, Bush Is No Reagan. The other article and chart was posted on CATO in August 2003, using the same title, On Spending, Bush Is No Reagan. The August 2003 article was an updated version based on a recently released mid-session review of the 2004 budget by the Bush administration.
Both the early chart and the revamped version clearly indicate that PresReagan lowered discreationary spending his first three years in office.
I'll post both charts for your benefit.
Here's a key part from the August 2003 CATO article that says it all.
"... Reagan cut real nondefense discretionary outlays by 13.5 percent compared to a 20.8 percent increase under Bush."
35
posted on
01/03/2004 11:06:55 PM PST
by
Reagan Man
(The few, the proud, the conservatives.)
To: jagrmeister
In addition, SS and Medicare aren't part of the discretionary budget spending. They're part of the mandatory entitlement expenditures.
36
posted on
01/03/2004 11:13:51 PM PST
by
Reagan Man
(The few, the proud, the conservatives.)
To: Reagan Man
I'm aware of the difference. I never claimed Medicare and Social Security were discretionary. Read the chart- Reagan didn't cut spending in his first three years.
37
posted on
01/04/2004 12:21:12 AM PST
by
jagrmeister
(I'm not a conservative. I don't seek to conserve, I seek to reform.)
To: Reagan Man
You've changed your argument. Here is what you said initially: "He lowered discretionary spending in his first three years in office." That is not supported by either chart. But it's clear Reagan had a better record on addressing non-defense discretionary spending than Bush.
38
posted on
01/04/2004 12:26:59 AM PST
by
jagrmeister
(I'm not a conservative. I don't seek to conserve, I seek to reform.)
To: jagrmeister
The facts disagrees with you. Reagan raised discretionary spending in his first 3 years by 6.8%. You're right. Reagan had to agree to spending increases in order to get the Dems to pass his programs, including tax cuts.
And while the tax cuts soon resulted in increased revenue to the Treasury, the increased spending still caused a deficit.
The lying Dems have claimed ever since that the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficits.
39
posted on
01/04/2004 12:35:46 AM PST
by
Jorge
To: MegaSilver
Send the corrupters to a juvenile disciplinary center, and keep them there until they are 'trained'! -page
The problem is that such correcting centers don't seem to be very effective in correcting youth. For delinquent (sp?) young people, I personally would prescribe either:
1. Catholic school (if there's nuns)
2. Boot camp -Mega
We are on the same page, just reading different words... The main thing is to separate the trouble-makers, and begin ,b.teaching again!
I don't think they even teach Latin, now, do they? Much less, Chaucer, Will'm Shakespeare, or the Bible. Nor, do they allow our children to read good old 'Uncle Remus', regardless of its un-PC structures...
Whatever has happened to the public schools (rhetorical question)? They certainly aren't properly educating, nor preparing...
40
posted on
01/04/2004 5:51:28 AM PST
by
pageonetoo
(Rights, what Rights'. You're kidding, right?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson