The Era of Super-Sized Government

Cato Institute ^ | June 2, 2005 | Stephen Slivinski

[rob777]

You could walk into most fast-food restaurants not long ago and order a small, medium, or large soda. Now it seems that the smallest soda you can buy is a medium and the options for large sodas are either extra large or "super-sized." That also seems to be the choice most voters face nowadays. They used to be able to choose between the Republicans (the party of small government) and the Democrats (the party of big government). After looking at the budget record of President Bush and the Republican Congress, it seems the only choice voters have anymore is between two political parties that have only slightly different preferences over how big government should be.

Despite the rhetoric of the president and Republicans in Congress, the actions of the GOP on the budget reflect a political party that is not at all serious about making government smaller. Once upon a time, Republicans pledged to eliminate entire Cabinet-level agencies. For instance, the House budget passed in the wake of the historic electoral victory of 1994 zeroed-out the departments of Education, Energy, and Commerce. More than 200 federal programs were set to be terminated. Of the 101 largest programs that were initially killed by Republicans, all but nineteen have risen from the dead. The combined budgets of these living dead programs have grown by 27 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1995.

During the past four years, President Bush has presided over the largest inflation-adjusted increase in spending since Lyndon B. Johnson -- and that does not include the skyrocketing costs of the new Medicare drug benefit that the president loves to brag about. The size of the federal government has grown from 18.5 percent of GDP -- where it was on the day Bill Clinton left office -- to 20.3 percent of GDP today. The 33 percent growth in the budget during Bush’s first term is about as large as the growth of the budget during Clinton's entire presidency.

What happened? Some argue that most of this spending is driven by increased defense expenditures required to fight the global war on terrorism and to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is true that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, made anti-terror spending a budget priority. Yet, when you strip away spending on defense, homeland security and entitlement programs and adjust the rest for inflation Bush still ranks as the biggest spending president in 30 years -- only Nixon is a bigger spender. Bush actually outspends Johnson by this criterion.

What has happened during the Bush presidency so far is that Republicans have resorted to a guns-and-butter philosophy of budgeting: instead of cutting low-priority programs to make room for high-priority spending they have urged increases in everything. Every president of the past 40 years other than Johnson and Jimmy Carter offset real increases in non-defense spending with real decreases in defense spending, or vice versa. The GOP has reversed this historical norm.

Bush's new budget does very little to change this situation. While it does include reductions in non-defense programs to make room for increases in defense spending -- 154 domestic programs would either be eliminated or cut -- Bush's budget knife does too little slicing in overall terms. The cuts and program terminations amount to a miniscule fraction of total federal spending: they equal only 0.3 percent of the overall budget. And not a single Cabinet-level agency will be smaller in real terms than it was at the beginning of Bush's first term. Every president of the past 40 years found at least one agency to cut during his administration.

Congress is likely to increase spending even more, just as it has done every year since 2001. In fact, if Congress had simply rubber-stamped Bush’s budget proposals every year, taxpayers would have been saved from footing the bill for an additional $91 billion in non-defense programs from 2001 to 2005. Instead, Congress piled more largesse into the budget bills and Bush refused to veto any of them.

Perhaps former President Clinton is correct and the era of big government is indeed over. Thanks to the GOP, taxpayers are greeted with the prospect of something far worse: the era of super-sized government.

[Sam Cree]

read later

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Every president since Hoover has inflated the government.

9/11 gave Bush a golden opportunity to rein in spending. If he wanted more "homeland security" monies, he could have asked for cuts in worthless domestic program such as Housing and energy assistance programs that do nothing but make citizens more irresponsible.

But no....massive pork-barrel farm bill? Check. New Medicare entitlement? Check. Massive energy pork barrel bill? Check. Meanwhile, SS and tax reform are dead in the water.

[billbears]

And yet I would wager a good portion of those on this thread have consistently continued to vote Republican for some inane reason. Don't complain about your politicians, you have yourselves to blame

[Hank Rearden]

Oh, goody. Another basher thread.

So, which aspects of the article are wrong?

[pfony1]

You said,

"They did a MUCH better job reigning in federal spending, even as a minority..."

I'm not aware of any budget filibusters that occurred when the Dems were the majority party. If you know of any, please enlighten me...

[Undertow]

Massive transportation bill? Check.

[MadIvan]

There is hope in this regard. The Republicans need to nominate Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina in 2008 to be President. He is the genuine heir of the Reagan Revolution.

I did not sign up for conservatism for increases in the size of government - I loved Margaret Thatcher in part because she sold off parts of goverment in wholesale lots through privatisation. That job is not done yet. I am confused and disheartened by President Bush expanding Medicare, for example.

Regards, Ivan

[rob777]

The "good old days" haven't been around since Calvin Coolidge.

Every president since Hoover has inflated the government.





It was "the good old days" in the sense that the GOP was serious about curbing federal spending. Unfortunately, that did not last very long. Clinton used the Oklahoma City bombing as an excuse to lump all limited government activists into the same category as domestic extremists such as Timmothy McVeigh. It did not take long for a number of political figures to distance themselves from the limited government cause. In the 2000 campaign the planks in the GOP Platform that called for eliminating the Dept. of Ed., etc., were eliminated and an expansion of the budget was called for under the guise of "Compassionate Conservatism". This was led by the Bush campaign, which was eager to distance itself from the "Contract With America" GOP "extremists".

[ARealMothersSonForever]

Look, I am not a Bushbot. I do believe that errors in strategy and policy must be pointed out. I also believe in sharing and analyzing potential solutions. This is difficult to accomplish when we live in a time of hyperspeed delivered information and opinion. Making it very difficult to discern useful information from (sometimes) useless opinion.
Holding up errors for others to see and comment on is not bashing in my book. Repeatedly carping on specific issues without offering solutions is bashing.

[rob777]

I'm not aware of any budget filibusters that occurred when the Dems were the majority party. If you know of any, please enlighten me...






I am talking about the "Contract With America" GOP. You were the one who who insinuated that I was a DU troll because I see their short time as "The good old days" for the GOP even though the GOP was a minority at the time. Actually. they gained a majority in the House and Senate during the 1994 elections, they just did not control the Whitehouse. Still, even without controlling the WH, they got far more accomplished than the current GOP.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

They'll vote for same losers in 2006 and again in 2008, otherwise the Democratic bogeyman is going to get us.

[rob777]

There is hope in this regard. The Republicans need to nominate Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina in 2008 to be President. He is the genuine heir of the Reagan Revolution.





He is a good choice, as is Mike Pence. We need to start a movement within the GOP away from big government conservatism and back toward the ideals that helped put the GOP class of 1994 in power. In doing so, we can not be shy about criticizing the direction the GOP is currently heading.

[billbears]

Repeatedly carping on specific issues without offering solutions is bashing.

There is a solution. Quit voting Republican or Democrat

[rob777]

Holding up errors for others to see and comment on is not bashing in my book. Repeatedly carping on specific issues without offering solutions is bashing.






I understand, but the size and role of government is not just a specific issue. It is the defining principle of what once was conservatism. In addition, there is more going on here than mere errors on a few specific issues. What we have is a trend leading us away from the fundamental principles that define us. We had Clinton on the ropes in 1995; we let him get away and have been back peddling ever since. He intimidated a lot of GOP political types into backing off from their limited government agenda when he linked that agenda with the extremists responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing. I want to see the current GOP pick up where the "Contract With America" GOP left off. The budget problems we see today are merely a symptom of this trend.

[Dead Corpse]

The solutions? CUT THE F*CKING PROGRAMS AND STOP SPENDING LIKE A BUNCH OF LIBERALS!!! It says it right in the article which ones and how much. To it I'd add anything not directly covered under the US Constitution. This includes the BATFE Department of the Treasury. It has no right to exist period.

Most of these idiot government bureaucracies are a solution looking for a problem. Get rid of them. If it doesn't pass a Constitutional "sniff test", axe it.

[pfony1]

I apologize.

I was a great fan of the "Contract with America" as well. And I am very sorry that the "term limits" part of that contract was (surprise! surprise!) forgotten. I think that if we had fewer incumbents trying to (buy vote$ to) keep their seats, we MIGHT have a more fiscally responsible government now. But "power corrupts..."

So I guess we need a watch-dog group to keep track of our Republican "big spenders", so we confront them with their wastrel ways during the primaries.

[darkangel82]

Who would you rather have had for President? Kerry? Gore? Puh-leeze.

[rob777]

I apologize.


No problem.






I was a great fan of the "Contract with America" as well. And I am very sorry that the "term limits" part of that contract was (surprise! surprise!) forgotten. I think that if we had fewer incumbents trying to (buy vote$ to) keep their seats, we MIGHT have a more fiscally responsible government now. But "power corrupts..."


It certainly does.







So I guess we need a watch-dog group to keep track of our Republican "big spenders", so we confront them with their wastrel ways during the primaries.


Perhaps we at FR could fill this role. To do so, we need to distinguish between bashing and constructive criticism. I am not all that fond of personal attacks on President Bush, but I am also painfully aware that he led the effort to water down the GOP Platform in 2000 and retreat from a commitment to smaller government. It was well known during the 2000 GOP primary that the limited government conservatives played the role of his "Sister Solja".

[pfony1]

You said,

"Ah yes...any valid criticism of Bush for not reining in gov't spending, the obligatory reference to DU is made by the 'bots."

As you may know, GWB does not write spending bills. His power is limited to signing them or vetoing them. Given that GWB has ambitious Judicial and International agendas and narrow Republican majorities (weakened by an excess of RINOs), do you really think it would have been WISE for GWB to "veto" every bill that was not EXACTLY what he wanted?

IMHO, GWB has prioritized his tasks properly:

(1) Win the War in Iraq
(2) Restore America's economic prosperity, in spite of:
(a) the dot-com bust
(b) 9/11
(c) business scandals, like Enron and WorldCom
(3) Replace activist judges with constitutional judges
(4) Upgrade the military
(5) Spread democracy to disarm potential enemies of the US
(6) Make the UN less of a joke
(7) Co-opt the militarism of China and Russia
---
(98) Abolish the Department of Education
(99) Abolish the Energy Department

And I think he is succeeding at those first few critical tasks.

IMHO, GWB's success will be measured by what he DOES accomplish while in office; not by what he WOULD have accomplished if only he had not wasted his political capital advocating "worthy causes" that were ultimately defeated because those pesky RINOs would not support him at "crunch-time".

If that makes me a "'bot", so be it...

[antiRepublicrat]

(2) Restore America's economic prosperity, in spite of:
  (a) the dot-com bust
  (b) 9/11
  (c) business scandals, like Enron and WorldCom

(d) Out of control government spending