GOP slams Bush policies at retreat

The Washington Times ^ | 2/6/04 | By Ralph Z. Hallow and James G. Lakely

[ovrtaxt]

Growing frustration over President Bush's immigration plan and lack of fiscal discipline came to a head behind closed doors at last weekend's Republican retreat in Philadelphia.

House lawmakers, stunned by the intensity of their constituents' displeasure at some of Mr. Bush's key domestic policies, gave his political strategist Karl Rove an earful behind closed doors.

[Missouri]

Bump.

[FreeReign]

According to the OMB, discretionary, non-DOD, non homeland defense type spending for FY2002(actual) was 351 billion, for FY2003(enacted) it was 367 billion and for 2004(estimated) it is 374 billion. If you do the math you will find that the increase from 2002(actual) to 2003(enacted) is 4.5%, and the increase from 2003 enacted to 2004 estimated is 0.2%. That would be an increase of 4.7% over the two years which is less than the increase in GDP.

What part of 2001 are you having a problem with? Nondefense discretionary spending was $347 billion that year. Nondefense discretionary spending has been proposed at $439 billion for 2004 (the final figure Bush signs will no doubt be higher). That is a 26.5% increase in nominal terms. Now I think we should end our futile debate unless you have a reply directly contradicting this.

I addressed the FY2002 budget with you way back on this thread. So then you told me in post #465 that my chart appears to be missing the two other budgets that Bush has proposed thus far. So then I address those two budgets FY2003 and FY2004 with you and you now tell me that I'm neglecting BY2002. Don't waste my time.

With your latest response, what part of non-DOD, non Homeland Defense don't you understand? (Hint: the answer is in bold). The increase you illustrate includes Homeland defense increases and it also includes increases in GDP. Do the math with GDP and Homeland defense factored. I've already illustrated it for on numerous posts.

One final time:

Discretionary, non-DOD spending as a percentage of GDP for Reagan's first two years was 3.9% and and 3.8%. For Bush, for his first two years, it was 3.5% and 3.6%. And those figures include the large Homeland defense costs that Bush has had to incur. Look it up in the freeping links I've provided you.

Enough!

[AntiGuv]

Like I said, there appears no reason for us to continue this debate further, with the exception being if you had a reply contradicting my final comment. Personally, I have no interest in even debating that further and only mentioned that I would as a courtesy (so as not to just hit & run).

Since this is not a contradiction of my final reply, but rather yet another reframing of the terms in an increasingly convoluted attempt to be correct when you are not, I will decline the implicit invitation to discuss the matter further.

Have a good night.

[WOSG]

You know, we should not browbeat on nondefense discretionary only.

The historical document shows clearly that spending increased in many areas, but most particularly in defense and homeland security:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/hist.pdf

Frankly, I am also a bit peeved that they are adding more defense spending and homeland security spending. My reason is this: We already got bump ups in the last 2 years, they are already up 20-30%. Why another increment?

[abigail2]

THE SLEEPING GIANT WAKES !!! ABOUT TIME!

[AntiGuv]

You will get no disagreement from me. It's just that the enormous gulf between the conservative budget policies of Reagan and the liberal budget policies of Bush is least evident in the category of defense spending.

If it were up to me, I would cut entitlements, nondefense, and defense spending - but then again I would have a radically different foreign policy from that of at least the past three administrations.

[WOSG]

The problem I have with focussing on non-defense discretionary is that it is just a smaller part of the bigger problem. The problem is the WHOLE BUDGET, not one peice of it. Here's a lot of RED FLAGS:

1) Medicare went from $156 billion in FY 1995 to $289 billion in FY 2005. It was $227 billion in FY 2002. So *noting* has been done to stop this runaway train except stoke the fire with the drug bill.

2) Social Security was $333 billion in FY 1995, $510 billion in FY 2005. It too is swallowing the budget whole. A long-term problem we must face.

3) Unemployment compensation bumped up from $24 billion FY 1995 to over $40 billion in FY2004.

4) transportation in FY 1995 to FY 1998 was about $37 billion, in FY 1999 it went up to $40 billion. It has been ramping up at a double digit increase EVERY YEAR. ... they want $67 billion in FY 2005.

5) Dept of Education More than doubled: $25 billion to $58 Billion. Education discretionary spending under Bush looks like this:
2002 - $62 billion
2003 - $71 billion
2004 - $77 billion
2005 - $78 billion

6) Defense under Bush similar
2002 - $348 billion (year we got afghanistan)
2003 - $404 billion (year we took baghdad)
2004 - $451 billion (year of occupation)
2005 - $448 billion (yet they claim this doesnt have occupation costs?)

NASA bumped up from $13.b in FY 2004 to $15.3B in FY 2005.
Let's save ourselves the $1 billion, okay?

I could go on and on.

The point should not be to bad-mouth or punish Bush. He does so much correct and this is not a bad budget. It's just that it is not a fiscally conservative one, at a time when we need some fiscal discipline. Ten years afte Clinton said the era of big Government is over, we find Government very much alive. JMHO.

[cricket]

"We heard that during the first election, too. "Save your criticism till after the election."

. . .so what do you want, President Kerry?

I don't agree with all GW does; not by a longshot. . .but sick of the public pile-on.

We need to win; not create a second-tier assault on GW.

[WOSG]

"You will get no disagreement from me. It's just that the enormous gulf between the conservative budget policies of Reagan and the liberal budget policies of Bush is least evident in the category of defense spending. "

I dont see it as black and white, and not all in Reagan's favor. For all the faults of current budget, total spending versus GDP is under 20%, less than under Reagan.
While we are epxanding defense budgets, Reagan's cold war defense budgets were a bigger percentage of GDP than the current ones. I think the expansion now though is that much less necessary, as we dont face the same level of large military threat. Terrorism is "assymetrical" as they say.

What bother me is not that these are awful budgets. Really, they are not, the deficits worries are overwrought, and the spending increases, while bothersome, are - at least for this year, smaller than the economy will grow (and deficit will decline too)... What bothers me is that for once we Republicans control the budget process completely and we should live up to our rhetoric about fiscal responsibility.
We could and should be more like the 1994 GOP Congress and keep TOTAL spending at 0% increase.

"If it were up to me, I would cut entitlements, nondefense, and defense spending" Me too. OTOH, I think Bush's foreign policy is exactly what we need!

[cricket]

"We heard that during the first election, too. "Save your criticism till after the election."

. . .so what do you want, President Kerry?

I don't agree with all GW does; not by a longshot. . .but sick of the public pile-on.

We need to win; not create a second-tier assault on GW.

[inquest]

Criticizing him from the right isn't going to result in a Kerry victory. In fact, it may help insulate him against leftist charges that he's not "compassionate" enough.

[George W. Bush]

Now you're implying the GOP needs a Senate super-majority to get things done?

At least they recognize the reality. We would need at least 65 senate seats to get the judges we want and override any Dim objections and cover GOP senators going liberal and either crossing to vote with Dims or just defecting to them (Jeffords).

So, 70 in the Senate, strong margin in the House, and the White House. And how long has such a situation ever lasted, if it ever has happened at all?

But we can't have judges and such. Not with Trent Lott running the Rules committee.

[4.1O dana super trac pak]

"This is the first time I didn't have to raise the immigration issue myself. Everyone else did. -- Tom Tancredo

[Lady Eileen]

bump

[AntiGuv]

The Democrats held 76 Senate seats (out of 96) in the 75th Congress (1937-1939). That would be equivalent to holding 79 seats today.

[AntiGuv]

By the way, in that same Congress there were 333 Democrats in the House with only 89 Republicans.

[Tench_Coxe]

Not to risk caling a pox upon Free Republic, but do you know where to find that 'Wheel of Eschoir' picture? The one where he's in some kind of bumblebee costume?

[FreeReign]

Discretionary, non-DOD spending as a percentage of GDP for Reagan's first two years was 3.9% and and 3.8%. For Bush, for his first two years, it was 3.5% and 3.6%.

Since this is not a contradiction of my final reply...

The above has been my point from my first post. It contradicted your CATO chart. But since it is not a contradiction to your last reply, then logically you agree with my first post.

[FreeReign]

The problem I have with focussing on non-defense discretionary is that it is just a smaller part of the bigger problem. The problem is the WHOLE BUDGET, not one peice of it. Here's a lot of RED FLAGS:...

Those are exactly the problems to which the president now adds a new entitlement.

I did attempt to switch focus to these problems back in post #407.

[FreeReign]

...transportation in FY 1995 to FY 1998 was about $37 billion, in FY 1999 it went up to $40 billion. It has been ramping up at a double digit increase EVERY YEAR. ... they want $67 billion in FY 2005.

I'm not sure about this. This $67 billion MAY include a big enough chunk of Homeland Defense.

Anyway the first two items that you mentioned are important;

1) Medicare went from $156 billion in FY 1995 to $289 billion in FY 2005. It was $227 billion in FY 2002. So *noting* has been done to stop this runaway train except stoke the fire with the drug bill. 2) Social Security was $333 billion in FY 1995, $510 billion in FY 2005. It too is swallowing the budget whole. A long-term problem we must face.