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."

[Guillermo]

Bush has exploded the deficit to over $500 billion, while adding trillions in new entitlements, and you're taking his proposition of a legal block on spending seriously?

[sauropod]

"In addition, everyone's screaming about illegal aliens as though they're a new problem. They were "taking our jobs" during the Clinton era, but I never heard a PEEP about that from FReepers."

That's because you weren't paying attention.

[Lizavetta]

Those who register here to work under President Bush's work permit program will have to PAY for it.

If illegals are working here illegally with impunity NOW, what makes you think they're going to pay anything to anybody for any stinking work permit? They'll continue to work illegally with impunity - what's to fear?

[cksharks]

Then give us the numbers!

[Dane]

Bush has exploded the deficit to over $500 billion, while adding trillions in new entitlements, and you're taking his proposition of a legal block on spending seriously?

And it's less than in GDP terms than it was during the Reagan adminaistration.

Also you never answered the question.

Which would a democrat propose, a legal block on spending or a legal block on tax cuts.

For many here on FR, the answer comes in a nanosecond, but I surmise that you may have to ponder about it for a while.

[sauropod]

The "true conservatives" around here fall mostly into two groups (please note the word "mostly"): Right-wing extremists and democrat plants.

That's obnoxious.

[e_engineer]

Right-wing extremists and democrat plants.

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

[NittanyLion]

You can find them in a number of sources, probably including threads here on FR. Feel free to enlighten yourself if you like - that's what I did.

[RogueIsland]

"To assure that Congress observes spending discipline, now and in the future, I propose making spending limits the law,"

Of course, there's always the Veto. Love ya' on defense George, but jeez, do you have to sign absolutely everything that comes across your desk?

[George W. Bush]

By 'most basic priorities' he obviously means public art. Where would be be as a country if we did not fund artists who are unable to make it in the private sector?!?!?!?

Indeed. Where would we get our photos of AIDS-deceased photographers showing us pictures of bullwhips inserted in the nether regions? Where would we get nude photos of children? Where could we see government-funded blasphemy against the Christian religion with crucifixes dangling in blood and urine?

Good thing Bush is proposing an increase for the NEA to battle the art shortage. And he hid behind Laura's skirts and got her to announce it.

[quantim]

GW Bush's domestic discretionary spending as a % of GDP is LESS than Ronald Reagan's was in the same years of their presidencies. This is Cold Hard Incontrovertible fact.

If this is even close, the administration is doing a pathetic job on the spin.  Spending = bigger/more government, which is an antithesis to conservative principles.  Whether it is real or perceived if left unchecked it will translate to less votes for the incumbent.  I fear voters will toss out Bush just to keep some checks and balances in government.  To conservatives it is a cruel irony to place a dem in the White House just to slow the checkbook down and hold on to your wallet.  

[cksharks]

I did not dispute it,you did.The numbers I heard and remember seeing were with it about 8% and without between 4and 41/2%. Now true these mumbers were not from a Bush hater.

[Beenliedto]

There is way too much talk of this spending thing. His numbers are SUPERIOR to Ronald Reagan's.

Well, I shore dew feel better now, Ah'll tell yuh!

Com'on, George... Your number's are better than Ronnie's. Go ahead and spend a couple more trillion!!

(Not to worry, the grandkids will pay for it).

[cake_crumb]

"And with Bush's Pill Bill, the prices of drugs are going to skyrocket, but it will help the economy, right?"

Why would they skyrocket? Because the Democrats say so? They're cheap NOW??? Are you KIDDING? Doctors don't PUSH the most expensive new drugs and enjoy kickbacks from pharmaceuticle companies RIGHT NOW??

There's a $3600 deductible in the new Medicare bill. There are other insurance companies out there right now that have a lower deductible and better coverage.

The aim of this bill is provatization.

Let me tell you a little secret about Medicare: it SUCKS. Always has. You're charged right out of your Social Security check for Medicare insurance. Part A covers very basic medical and prescription care, Part B covers that plus hospitalization. It pays for less than half of anything, and if you buy supplimental insurance, GUESS WHAT?? Medicare will insist on not payign because some other insurance is primary. Yet you're being charged for it.

Know what else? As it is, Medicare is impossible to OPT OUT OF without a protracted battle, even though it's overpriced, gives undercoverage and like any insurance company, does it's best not to pay.

I had Medicare Part B. We also got Blue Cross& Blue Shield. Medicare did not ever, not ONCE pay for ANY of my medical care. NEVER. BC&BS was considered primary. It took almost two years of arguing with the Federal government to let me opt out of Medicare. Why the heck should I pay for coverage I don't use?? And they didn't even want to give me the CHOICE. Well...maybe they really didn't know how to go about doing this. For all I know, I was the first person ever to scream to get OFF such a useless POS excuse for medical insurance.

Seniors aren't getting anything grand out of that bill. THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T LIKE IT. Especially those seniors old enough that they never paid anything INTO SS in the first place. What THEY want is completely socialized health care. Ever listen to an 80 year old whine that the government doesn't give enough Social Security to them, that they're being singled out just because they're "notch babies" and didn't pay anything IN? It's all the evil REPUBLICANS fault that they only get the minimum...to them, the fact that they never paid in is not a factor.

Their best bet, OUR best bet, is to get together into groups...like we did during the Reagan era, to get group discounts. Or start new, discount insurance companies. Better yet, let's do BOTH. IMO, the best thing we can do is ALL of us find a way to opt out of Medicare entirely. It's in our best interests.

[Guillermo]

Oh goodness.

I'm not your "fact checker."

I've already seen another poster who said your "facts" are wrong.

Only a certified Bush-bot could defend this outrageous growth in spending, and these outrageous deficits.

[NittanyLion]

I did not dispute it,you did.The numbers I heard and remember seeing were with it about 8% and without between 4and 41/2%.

I took a few hours one day and informed myself, and came up with an educated opinion to the contrary. Whether you choose to do the same, is up to you. But quite honestly I barely have the time to keep myself up to date, not to mention other folks. The CBO site is a good place for you to start if you're genuinely interested.

[quantim]

"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.

Except during 'wartime' which it is now.

[Miss Marple]

Ah, the "divided government is better for conservatives" statement (which I first noted as a spin by the DNC/media this morning) has now started being regurgetated in the echo chamber of the far right.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt in not thinking you are a plant from the Rat side of the aisle (even though you are a recent registrant) and instead am going to assume that you are simply mindlessly and emotionally parroting others you have heard push this ridiculous possibility as a reasonable choice.

[cake_crumb]

**SIGH**...because the plan is to make them pay to become legal, or track them down and arrest them, in which case you guys can b*tch even more because it'll require more deficit spending to pay for the manpower to accomplish. Oh, before anyone asks, the increased fees are to pay for the increased processing, not to screw the illegals out of their "hard earned pay". I can see this accusation coming from the Democrats any time now.

[Jerez2]

Owen, you make a good point. The dot-com boom inflated values with its phony money. This affected the "percentage of GDP" measure of govt spending growth, making it look lower under Clinton (who cut the military which now needs to be rebuilt), and making it look proportionately higher under Bush.

I think what he is trying to do is re-set spending priorities. AND re-set the political agenda. For example, just bringing up the subject of immigration.

I am very angry about the 'amnesty' solution he offered for our immigration problem, but interestingly, it has flushed the Dim candidates out regarding THEIR positions on the subject of immigration. Crazy like a fox again!

I will admit that between the amnesty and the increase in NEA funding my faith in W was shaken. But basically, I do trust him, and am ready to wait and see what his proposal actually looks like before condemning it -- and him.