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."

[NittanyLion]

**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.

Have you considered the inherent conflict in your statement? If we don't have the manpower to enforce the current system, how are we going to enforce the proposed system?

[Reagan Man]

>>>His numbers are SUPERIOR to Ronald Reagan's.

Not true. Let's look at OMB numbers.

In 1981 non-DoD discretionary spending was $164 billion under Carter.

In 1982 $143 billion under Reagan.

In 1983 $150 billion.

In 1984 $165 billion.

According to these OMB figures, Reagan increased non-DoD discretionary spending by .6% in his first three years.

Here are the figures for Bush`s first three years. This includes non-DoD for 2001 and non-DoD/HSD for 2002, 2003, 2004.

2001 = $357 billion under Clinton.

2002 = $361 billion under Bush.

2003 = $360 billion.

2004 = $377 billion.

That means under Bush, non-Dod/HSD spending increased 5.6% in Bush`s first three budgets.

[Happy2BMe]

""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."

That's fine Mr. President - it even sounds conservative.

Now about those borders, Mr. President - and about those illegal migrants, Mr. President . .

[Happy2BMe]

Good post - facts are sometimes useful.

[cake_crumb]

Right.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

it'll require more deficit spending to pay for the manpower to accomplish

Not if its done the way its supposed to be done right now if a cop arrests an illegal the INS says let him go if the INS gets off its arse and does its job and deports them the way they are supposed to it shouldn't take anymore manpower to enforce the laws already written

[Reagan Man]

See my post at RE:#62.

Went to OMB and pulled the figures from the historical spreadsheets. I didn't include 2005`s estimated (projected) budget numbers, because it's not a final version. In other words the outcome is unknown. Even 2004`s numbers are estimates at this point.

If PresBush can reduce the rate of growth in non-DoD/HSD discretionary spending, that would be great. But so far, it hasn't happened on his watch. PresReagan did have success reducing non-DoD discretionary spending in his first three years in office.

[cake_crumb]

"What part of deport don't you understand! You are hiding behinds Clinton's skirt."

ME?? What??

[cake_crumb]

"I would settle for having every additional one of my dollars that George wants to spend..."

Speaking of illegal immigrants, the FIRST thing that should be done is stop giving them Welfare and food stamps. Think of the money that would save

[arete]

You can't make this stuff up! LOL!

. . . and jesse pledged to never ever rob another bank if only we would give him just one more chance . . . as long as we put better locks on the doors. I have to wonder if Rove realizes how foolish he is making Bush look.

Richard W.

[macwizer]

Scuse me Mr President but your the.... ahhhhh..... problem .... not congress

[sweetliberty]

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

Not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't this a lot like closing the barn door after the horse has already escaped?

[Zipporah]

Yep.. sounds conservative "I propose making spending limits the law" but it seems most of the spending proposals are coming from the WH. I'm sure he avoided any mention of the amnesty proposal wasn't mentioned.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[NittanyLion]

Thanks RM. As I recall I'd come up with somewhere around 7.5%, but I remember thinking that it was difficult to accurately pull Homeland Security expenses out based on the numbers I was looking at. Regardless, the expenditure is not growing at less than 4%/year.

We need look no further than the White House's pledge to hold spending on discretionary items under 4% next year. If it were already under 4%, I'd expect they'd take credit for that and say they'll continue to hold spending under 4% as they have in previous years.

[quantim]

will give you the benefit of the doubt in not thinking you are a plant from the Rat side of the aisle

I beg your pardon.  Perhaps you could read a little closer next time.  I never suggested this was a good idea, nor do I.  I raised it as a "fear" and a possibility.  Don't assume anything, it can make look one foolish.  And for the record "divided government is better for conservatives"  those are your words, not mine.  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1068963/posts?page=15#15  Additionally, remind yourself that ticket-splitting for whatever reason has been going on for generations and will likely continue to do so and will behoove the Bush Admin to consider just that.

[cake_crumb]

"If we don't have the manpower to enforce the current system, how are we going to enforce the proposed system?"

What conflict?? I already SAID we can't afford it, we don't have the money. We can't enforce it. To be honest, I do not believe this proposal will work. Nor to I believe it'll cause more immigrants to flock here.

I disagree with it for different reasons that most people here, who are flaming indiscriminately when sombody doesn't use the approved keywords and wordbytes in their posts. I disagree with it because I understand the reasoning behind it and how immigration works. Or rather, is supposed to work. There's no more way this guest worker program will DECREASE illegals than there is for it to increase them.

Despite the good intentions, it can't work. There is just too much area to cover and too many people to sort through. There are too many necessary new security checks...Homeland Security claimed not to have the money to enforce immigration despite having it's budget almost doubled last year.

On the other hand, it's a step toward improving how we go about enforcing immigration law. To be fair, Homeland Security had a very badly broken system dumped into it's lap. Sadly, it appears that everyone expects it to fix the old immigration system while simultaneously inventing a whole NEW system which fixes the old one and addresses new security needs.

The Homeland Security office is only a year old this month. There are going to be attempts to do things new ways, and there will be mistakes. The American people have been demanding way too much from Homeland security since two years before it even finally opened. I don't see how anyone can succeed in this climate.

[mabelkitty]

Sure, now that the fat Farm Bill, Medicaid bill, and fat Teddy's Education bills have all been approved.

[cake_crumb]

"Not if its done the way its supposed to be done right now if a cop arrests an illegal the INS says let him go if the INS gets off its arse and does its job and deports them the way they are supposed to it shouldn't take anymore manpower to enforce the laws already written"

There is no longer an INS. Thankfully.

[mathluv]

Have you seen this?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/2004budgetperspective.html
February 4, 2003 FISCAL POLICY MEMO
By John S. Barry, Chief Economist
The President’s FY2004 Budget in Perspective