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."

[verity]

How much has been budgeted to replace the sky that is falling?

[cake_crumb]

"How much has been budgeted to replace the sky that is falling?"

FOFLOL! BUMP!

[Old Fud]

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."

All of that, and we'll save money while we're at it.

Wow. Wish it worked that way in my world.

[Reagan Man]

Your figures are probably right. I used the Carter years and the Clinton years as a baseline to reach my conclusions. The discretionary numbers are on OMB.gov, under Spreadsheets-Historical Tables-Section 8.

I have a problem when people who use federal expenditures related to GDP. It may give an overall eyeball account, but it doesn't get to the nitty-gritty of budgetary expenditures. When you look at the annual budgets of Reagan versus Bush43, its quite obvious that Reagan spent more on defense then Bush has, so far. Also, Reagan spent less on "Human Resources" then Bush has, so far. And I don't think that gonna change anytime soon.

Lastly, when you set aside DoD spending --- (THE #1 CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT). And when you set aside interest payments on the national debt --- (THE ONLY REAL MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF GOVERNMENT), Reagan comes out ahead. Reagan is more fiscally responsible then Bush43.

[GailA]

How about vetoing some of those nearly 8,000 PORK projects? That would be a good start, then there is WASTE and FRAUD to go after.

[Guillermo]

Who's saying the sky is falling?

[cake_crumb]

Pork projects are concealed within bills. President Bush would have to veto every bill that comes to him without bothering to read it because they all contain pork. The Senate knows he hasn't vetoed one bill, because they all contain a few items he desperately wants implimented.

There is no power of line item veto. Therefore, the only way for him to stop pork is to get tough, start vetoing, and send them back as many times as necessary until they contain ONLY the stuff he wants implimented. This of course will ruin his agenda but it looks like the only thing he can do.

[BJClinton]

Bush has exploded the deficit...

Why do you "Bush-haters" always put all the blame on him? Don't forget we have a Republican legislature that originates all of this spending.

Kidding about the "Bush-hater" label

[JoeSchem]

NOTE: I'm NOT being disrespectful to Bush. The undeniable fact IS that his 'veto pen' IS a virgin.

His statement is like a parody of the parody that The Onion ran, about how Bush is now pledging to restore honor and integrity to the White House. You read his statement, and you want to say to him, "Dude, where ya been the past three years?"

[PISANO]

What you say is TRUE........but NOT suitable for a SOUND BITE, which has become the STANDARD for news reporting as well as the standard for many on this board. 500 KIA's in IRAQ being one and 1/2 trillon dollar deficit is another.

The nuances (truth and accuracy) are not AS IMPORTANT as the (partial inaccurate truth) SOUND BITE.

[JoeSchem]

Bush never uses the word 'veto,' just like he never uses the word 'illegal' in front of the word 'immigrant.' Once you catch onto the game, it's galling how transparent it is.

[arete]

Why do you "Bush-haters" always put all the blame on him? Don't forget we have a Republican legislature that originates all of this spending.

I don't hate Bush, I just want him and his neocons out of office and consevatives in.

Richard W.

[cake_crumb]

Bush has threatened veto more than once. He also uses the term illegal immigrant. Please don't lie.

[arete]

threatened veto

Boy, I'll bet he scared a lot of people with that joke. LOL

Richard W.

[HostileTerritory]

Tom Delay and Bill Frist would tell a Democratic President to hit the road.

Tom Delay and Bill First would tell George W. Bush that they will work with him to pass whatever $$$$$$ bill is needed to ensure his reelection.

Hasn't anyone on this thread heard of Gramm-Rudman? This idea has been tried before. It doesn't do anything.

[BJClinton]

I don't hate Bush,

I know, hence the small font script. I was just taking a stab at the legislature that has written all of this pork barrel crap. When bashing Bush others in Washington need to share the blame. I am proud to say the only active Congressman I've supported (R. Paul) is a real conservative.

[HostileTerritory]

GDP has continued to grow strongly, with the exception of 2001, when it only grew a fraction of a percent due to two quarters of recession. The dot-com boom did not inflate GDP... if it did, that bubble has never popped, because GDP is HIGHER now than it was in the 1990s!

Do you remember those 8% numbers being thrown around a few months ago? That was the rate of GDP growth. GDP is growing faster now than in most years under the 'RATS.

Sorry, Owen's argument fails. It has a nice ring to it with the dot-com boom reference but it bears no resemblance to economic reality.

[HostileTerritory]

I don't hate Bush, I just want him and his neocons out of office and consevatives in.

Can I hear an AMEN?

I am getting tired of waiting for Bill Owens' turn to come in and clean things up.

[HostileTerritory]

Clinton had GDP that was artificially large due to the dotcom boom.

Owen, check your numbers. GDP has increased EVERY YEAR since Clinton left office. Even in 2001, the year of recession, it grew by a fraction of a percent because two quarters of shrinkage were outweighed by two quarters of growth.

The economy is on track to have grown about 6% in 2003.

No offense, but your argument is economically illiterate.

[HostileTerritory]

PISANO, I'm sorry, but check out my #99... Owen's argument rests on a lack of knowledge of GDP. GDP has grown every year since the early 1990s. That's why you won't hear it on the news.