Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

So Many Missed Opportunities (W spending money like Drunken Sailor)
Tech Central Station ^ | today | Veronique de Rugy

Posted on 06/22/2005 9:49:57 AM PDT by Rodney King

The time has now come for fiscal conservatives to publicly admit the truth: the Republican complicity in the great spending spree of the early 21st century has placed our agenda on life-support. By failing to cut spending while implementing tax cuts and fighting a war, we now find ourselves in a predicament. The beast has not been starved, the deficit has once again become a political issue, and the chances of acceptable Social Security reform, overhaul of the tax code, and the permanence of the previous tax cuts are all in jeopardy.

This dismal situation harkens back to events in the 1990s. Throughout the mid-1990s, the Republican Congress did a good job controlling spending. Combined with pro-growth policies like welfare reform and a capital gains tax cut, an environment of rapid revenue growth and limited spending growth emerged. The net result was a budget surplus. But this was not the fiscal Promised Land. Like hungry children who happen upon a bag of candy, Congress just couldn't control itself once there was extra money on the table, and the Clinton White House certainly was not interested in exercising adult oversight. Why worry about downsizing government when the days of deficit are over?

Sadly, the victory of President Bush in the 2000 election did not change that trend. Any hope that the Bush administration would steer the "Republican Revolution" back on course was dashed almost immediately. First there was the enactment of the President's education bill, No Child Left Behind. Since when do Republicans stand for federal spending on Education? Yet, in four years, President Bush increased spending at the Department of Education by 98.6 percent. However, instead of being ashamed, Republicans see the increase as an accomplishment.

Then, there was the farm bill. This bill is best characterized as a bipartisan orgy of special interest politics. It makes a mockery of the Freedom to Farm Act signed in 1996 by President Clinton. Today, old subsidies have been increased, new subsidies created and the budget of the Department of Agriculture is up 40 percent. Finally, the Republicans are responsible for the biggest expansion in Medicare since 1965.

It is well known that national crises -- particularly war -- always result in an expansion of government. The tragic events of September 11, 2001 were no different. In addition to the massive run-up in spending for the war effort, airport security was nationalized, the Department of Homeland Security was created, an intelligence bureaucracy is being formed, and foreign aid continues to skyrocket. Also, instead of seeking concomitant reductions in nondefense areas of the budget, Congress has sent spending across the board shooting through the roof.

To be sure, President Bush never pretended to be a Goldwater or a Reagan Republican. His campaign promised a new "compassionate conservatism" and a desire to "change the tone in Washington." Today, we know that compassionate conservatism is really just big government and changing the tone means his veto pen is buried under the ground.

The last four years, total spending has risen 33 percent -- a figure larger than Clinton's two terms combined. Adjusted for inflation, one would have to go back to Lyndon Johnson to find a larger increase. Moreover, real discretionary spending increases in FY2002, FY2003, FY2004 and FY2005 are 4 of the 10 biggest annual increases in the last 40 years.

Source: de Rugy's calculations based on Budget of the U.S. Government FY2006. Covers FY1966 to FY2005. FY2004 and FY2005 are estimates.

To his credit, the President's latest budget proposes to cut funding for Amtrak, to reign in Medicaid, and to eliminate or reduce 150 programs. Under other circumstances, applause would be in order. But in the context of continuing major expenditures for the war, the need to fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, the desire to make the tax cuts permanent, the need to reform Social Security, the looming crisis in entitlement spending, this budget does not come close to getting the job done.

Besides, the President's recent threat to veto any congressional attempts to roll back the Medicare prescription-drug benefit indicates that the White House isn't serious about fiscal restraint. Freezing non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary appropriations is nice. But this category only represents one-sixth of the total budget. Cutting or eliminating 150 programs for annual savings of $20 billion is nice, too. But this figure pales in comparison to the $724 billion estimated cost over the next ten years of the drug bill.

The GOP leadership in Congress capitulated a long time ago. The appropriators in both Houses wield a tremendous amount of power over the make-up of the budget, and will fight like cornered animals when their territory is challenged. And now "moderate" Republicans are siding with the Democrats for increases in taxes as a way to address the budget deficit. In other words, like during the Reagan years when the Republican-controlled Senate did more to frustrate the president's budget cutting crusade than the Democrat-controlled House, the Republican-controlled Congress is to blame for the lack of spending control.

Ronald Reagan was a master of presidential symbolism. On November 23, 1981 he exercised his veto and shut down the federal government to demonstrate his determination to cut government spending. It was a grand gesture and good politics, too. If Republicans don't want to see their opportunity to achieve long-standing goals slip through their fingers, they should start to change their behavior and change it now. But can politicians really change their ways?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bigspenderbush; bush; bushnotconservative; crazy; drunkenrino; momoneymomoney; osamastillatlarge; taxes; worstamericanever; worstpresidentever; zawahiristillatlarge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last
Remember the good 'ole days when we got to blame out of control spending on our lack of control of the government?
1 posted on 06/22/2005 9:49:59 AM PDT by Rodney King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

Yes...I do...

It's infuriating.


2 posted on 06/22/2005 9:53:16 AM PDT by RockinRight (Conservatism is common sense, liberalism is just senseless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
If not for the War on Terror, President Bush would have little support among conservatives and republicans (they are not the same), and it is likely he would have gone down to a crushing defeat at the hands of virtualy any democrat in 2004.

He has been an abject failure at almost all levels outside of fighting terrorists. And even at that he seems to have gone wobbly and soft.

3 posted on 06/22/2005 9:53:40 AM PDT by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

No republicans left..the democrats are socialists and the republicans are democrats


4 posted on 06/22/2005 9:54:27 AM PDT by skaterboy (Me love you long time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

"W" spending money like a drunkin sailor??
I wasn't aware that the President had those powers.........


5 posted on 06/22/2005 9:54:51 AM PDT by GeorgeW23225 (Liberals really aren*t bad people. It*s just that they know so much that simply ISN*T true!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
If not for the War on Terror, President Bush would have little support among conservatives and republicans (they are not the same), and it is likely he would have gone down to a crushing defeat at the hands of virtualy any democrat in 2004. He has been an abject failure at almost all levels outside of fighting terrorists. And even at that he seems to have gone wobbly and soft.

I agree. I only voted for W because of the WOT. In fact, if Lieberman had been the candidate I might have considered voting for him since the Republican Congress only seems to do a decent job when there is a Democrat in the white house, and Lieberman would have been ok on the WOT.

6 posted on 06/22/2005 9:55:30 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeW23225

Boy, the way PBS is acting you'd think the man was a real tight wad.


7 posted on 06/22/2005 9:56:05 AM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeW23225
I wasn't aware that the President had those powers.........

Well actually he proposes a budget to the Congress, and is just as much to blame for the spending as congress is. Have you heard him pounding the table for spending cuts, or using the veto? I sure haven't. But go on thinking he is for less government if you want.

8 posted on 06/22/2005 9:57:11 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeW23225

Has George figured out where Karl hid his veto stamp?


9 posted on 06/22/2005 9:58:33 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Never underestimate the will of the downtrodden to lie flatter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

The Republicans are getting as bad as the Democrats when it comes to spending money. I told the RNC solicitor on the phone that no checks go to the RNC until Rebublicans start acting like Conservatives again. Today does it make much difference who's elected?


10 posted on 06/22/2005 10:00:06 AM PDT by From The Deer Stand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
"all levels outside of fighting terrorists."

With the utter failure to secure the borders and coasts of the United States - effectively giving us no secured perimeter in the middle of a war - can 'fighting terrorists' even be considered among his strong points?
11 posted on 06/22/2005 10:01:25 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent

I later went on to say that he has gone wobbly and soft on even fighting terrorists.


12 posted on 06/22/2005 10:02:03 AM PDT by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: From The Deer Stand

We do have a series spending problem.


13 posted on 06/22/2005 10:06:26 AM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeW23225
"I wasn't aware that the President had those powers"

The President is the leader of his party. His party controls both parts of Congress. The President also has the power to veto bills from Congress, including spending bills.
14 posted on 06/22/2005 10:07:35 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
Republicans can kiss my butt. I got their number back in '96 when they stuck a stick up OldBob Dole's behind, paraded his corpse around and pretended that's what the country needed.

Don't support either of the two Big Stupid Government parties!

15 posted on 06/22/2005 10:08:37 AM PDT by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
He has been an abject failure at almost all levels outside of fighting terrorists.

Here, Here!

16 posted on 06/22/2005 10:10:24 AM PDT by Useless_eater_on_steroids ("We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." -- Aesop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
I don't think all of the presidents are accounted for in the article. over the time period.

Also, spending increases have been necessary to support the war effort without a tax increase or war taxation on the population.

Any leader that has a strong will (go the distance) and is not going to make decisions based on non scientific polls (MSM polls) is better then any Democrat presidential candidate.

Yes Bush is spending money, but he is spending money and keeping you and your family safe in the process.
17 posted on 06/22/2005 10:11:20 AM PDT by PureTrouble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skaterboy

The Rats have moved so far to the left, that they have dragged the GOP right along with them further leftward.


18 posted on 06/22/2005 10:12:00 AM PDT by dfwgator (Flush Newsweek!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: skaterboy
No republicans left..the democrats are socialists and the republicans are democrats

Yep, Revolutionary Socialists VS. Fabian Socialists.

Pathetic.

19 posted on 06/22/2005 10:12:25 AM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

Conservatives still don't have control. Republicans do, but not conservatives.


20 posted on 06/22/2005 10:12:38 AM PDT by rushmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-105 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson