Bush proposes legal block on Congress spending

Yahoo! News ^ | January 31, 2004 | Yahoo! News

[Print]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush (news - web sites) said he would place a legal block on overspending by the US Congress as he hit back at critics who have accused him of being reckless with US finances.

AFP/POOL/File Photo

"To assure that Congress observes spending discipline, now and in the future, I propose making spending limits the law," Bush declared Saturday in his weekly radio address, ahead of the release Monday of the fiscal 2005 budget, in which the deficit is expected to hit a new record high.

"This simple step would mean that every additional dollar the Congress wants to spend in excess of spending limits must be matched by a dollar in spending cuts elsewhere.

"Budget limits must mean something, and not just serve as vague guidelines to be routinely violated. This single change in the procedures of the Congress would bring further spending restraint to Washington."

The Republican president faces mounting pressure over his financial policy as opposition Democrats step up their attacks in election year.

The White House announced Friday that the 2005 budget deficit would hit 521 billion dollars, a record in dollar terms.

But Bush, who has blamed US economic troubles on the September 11, 2001, attacks, wars in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq (news - web sites), and a recession he inherited from former president Bill Clinton (news - web sites), insisted that his spending policies were responsible.

He reaffirmed his aim of cutting the budget deficit in half within five years.

He said that "Americans will see my priorities clearly at work" when the budget is released Monday.

"We will devote the resources necessary to win the war on terror and protect our homeland. We'll provide compassionate help to seniors, to schoolchildren, and to Americans in need of job training. And we will be responsible with the people's money by cutting the deficit in half over five years."

Under the Bush plan, defense spending will increase seven percent, including a 3.5-percent pay increase for the military, homeland security spending will rise 10 percent to 30.5 billion dollars.

"This money will help tighten security at our borders, airports and seaports, and improve our defenses against biological attack," Bush told the nation.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation budget will rise 11 percent, including a 357 million dollar increase in counterterrorism spending. "America will not let its guard down in our war on terror," he vowed.

An extra 600 million dollars will also go toward assistance for the elderly to buy drugs and more money for public schools.

"We're meeting these priorities within a responsible budget," Bush said.

The president has proposed that overall "discretionary spending" will grow at less than four percent and non-security spending would rise less than one percent, which he said would be "the smallest such proposed increase in 12 years."

"By exercising spending discipline in Washington DC, we will reduce the deficit and meet our most basic priorities."

[GretchenEE]

I don't know the solution but something HAS to be done to control Congressional spending and restore fiscal soundness.

Which founder wrote about the danger to the country, once the people realized they could vote themselves money out of the public trough?

[Print]

I think it was de Tocqueville.

"The new American experiment in democracy will succeed only until the people learn that they can vote themselves money out of the National Treasury".

[ShadowDancer]

Yeah, and don't forget the NEA funding. Without that you wouldn't know how to post in HTML with pretty graphics!

[Kaslin]

You seem to forget that the president can not spend money. It is the congress who does. He can only propose a spending bill. So put the blame where it belongs, not on the president

[Saturnalia]

Can we put a legal block on how much George W. is allowed to spend?

[Kaslin]

Perhaps we also need a law stating the President will veto any bill that doesn't also adhere to the same principle...

What good is a veto by the president if the congress has the power to override (overwrite?) a veto and it becomes law anyway

[cake_crumb]

"I don't know the solution but something HAS to be done to control Congressional spending and restore fiscal soundness."

Obviously, some here want us to believe the 'solution' to congressional pork is blaming Bush for trying to do something about it and voting him out of office.

[Monti Cello]

Here's a quick compilation from CBO numbers comparing the averages as a pct of GDP during Reagan, Clinton and GW Bush eras:

Total Outlays:
81-88: 22.4%
93-00: 19.9%
01-03: 19.3%

Defense:
81-88: 5.9%
93-00: 3.5% (cut during Clinton era)
01-03: 3.4% (growing during Bush era)

Total Discretionary spending:
81-88: 9.9%
93-00: 7.0%
01-03: 7.1%

Domestic Discretionary spending:
81-88: 3.6%
93-00: 3.2%
01-03: 3.4%

Programmatic (nondiscretionary) spending:
81-88: 10.8%
93-00: 11.0%
01-03: 11.4%

This final category represents the largest increase in spending over the past ~40 years, and has roughly doubled since the mid-60s. Discretionary spending has declined over the same period.

[cake_crumb]

I haven't forgotten the NEA funding. I didn't need to add it, or CFR, because you one issue ponies talk of nothing BUT, and pretend the entire budget is being spent on entitlements. It isn't and the REST needs to be told over and over to counter you guys. It's that simple.

[Natural Law]

What a bunch of election year crap. The constitution places the sole authority to spend (and not to spend) in the hands of congress, not the executive branch. The President already has a veto, if he is upset, use the damn thing!

[ShadowDancer]

God this is getting tiring. Okay, please explain to me how I am a one issue voter.

[alnick]

Pretty sad that fiscal responsibility is now considered extreme right wing.

It's pretty sad that you would interpret my comments that way.

I'll tell you what's extremist. Refusing to acknowledge the many conservative things the president has done. Yes, he's done some things that are upsetting. I HATE that he wants to waste more money on the NEA. That does not change the many positives.

When someone refuses to acknowledge ANY of the conservative things he's done and refuses to acknowledge he's the best man to lead our troops in this war, that's when I have to conclude that the person is either an extremist or a shill.

There have been a lot of people who have complained about specific things the president has done, and for the most part they've been treated with respect around here. It's those who claim to be such pure conservatives that they demand all or nothing that I was referring to.

[Huck]

Don't sell the President short. I give him full credit for making an ass of himself.

[Owen]

Very good, sir. My assertion was a comparison of Bush to Reagan for the same year of presidency. Bush's numbers are superior.

Your presentation is valid, in that regard, but it is unwise to make too much of this superiority of Bush's domestic discretionary fiscal discipline vs Reagan because of the difference of GDP growth in the equivalent years. It has been *harder* for Bush to achieve those SUPERIOR numbers than it was for Reagan.

One must also be careful not to average multiple years. The best comparison is year by year of the presidency in question. Clinton's numbers are not really relevant because of the dotcom aberration on GDP.

[Owen]

No, I think you may not understand GDP. The yardstick changed during the 90's. Categories of contribution are not measured identically. There is also considerable doubt about the efficacy of the deflator. This took place in the '90's.

Regardless, this is not the focus of the point. The point is Bush's domestic discretionary spending discipline is proven to be superior to Ronald Reagan's for the same years of the presidency.

[Owen]

You may not rebut with a change of yardstick. The assertion made was as a percentage of GDP, which is the only legitimate measure for a number of reasons, not the least of which is inflation on the raw dollar numbers.

[Reagan Man]

There are so many ways to present the feds budget numbers. The recent debate on who was more fiscally responsible Reagan or Bush43, on matters of non-defense/non-HSD discretionary spending, is clearly spelled out in the following figures. Also, notice the huge drop in defense spending under der schlickmeister.

From OMB: Budget Outlays for Reagan (81-85), Clinton (93-97), Bush43 (01-05).

Discretionary Spending
81-85: +35.1%
93-97: +14.8%
01-05: +30.9%

Defense Spending
81-85: +73.9%
93-97: -7.1%
01-05: +33.9%

Non-Defense/Non-HSD Discretionary Spending
81-85: +8.7%
93-97: +11.7%
01-05: +20.1%

[NittanyLion]

You may not rebut with a change of yardstick. The assertion made was as a percentage of GDP, which is the only legitimate measure for a number of reasons, not the least of which is inflation on the raw dollar numbers.

Percentage of GDP does not take into account at what level spending was when the president entered office. The performance of a President who entered office when discretionary spending was [say] 10% of GDP, and whittled it down to 6%, clearly performed better than one who entered office when discretionary spending was [say] 3% of GDP and allowed it to slip to 6%.

A legitimate measure of a President's performance takes into account the percent increase or decrease against previous years' budgets.

[Monti Cello]

I'd say it's clear Bush is restoring spending on defense, and dumping cash into homeland security.

Otherwise, spending roughly maintains the status quo. Of course, Republican control is a new phenomenon, so the status quo is not acceptable.

I'm guessing Dubya decided that spending cuts were not his battle -- at least prior to re-election. I had no illusions that 'compassionate conservatism' equated fiscal conservatism. He has clearly focused on foreign policy and cultural conservative issues, and done well there in my opinion. I imagine he is calculating to avoid giving the Dems the 'cold-hearted spending cut' sledgehammer to bash him with in 04.

Perhaps understandable, but a weak position, and ultitmately indefensible.

The libs think they are being very cute lately, calling for fiscal restraint. That is only credible to blind idiots.

Bush could turn this around and raise fiscal restraint as a 2nd term campaign issue, after the Dems are clearly on record supporting this as a concept. Bush could argue that the recession and the war worked against him in his first term.

How would Kerry counter with a deficit-cutting plan? Defense cuts? tax hikes? Domestic spending cuts? He would have a hard time detailing his plans, and his own record would make any such plan very suspect.

However given Bush's track record so far, Bush might not be able to sell this either.