Posted on 12/20/2005 6:23:36 AM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
One of the overlooked stories of President Bush's Budget is what the President's focus is in the near-term future by his budget projection out to the year 2010.
When President Bush submitted his Budget this year for Fiscal Year 2006, he also was required to submit projections four years out. It is the trend of the major categories (called "Superfunctions") which is both the most important and also the most shocking.
"Human Resources" is the broadest measure of social welfare. It is also the largest expense in the USA's budget. For Fiscal Year 2006, the projection is 65.3 cents of very dollar going toward Human Resources. However, the shocking trend is President Bush has the figure rising to 67.2 cents of every dollar for 2010.
"Defense" is the #2 expense in the budget. This is where the alarm bells go off. For Fiscal Year 2006, President Bush has Defense at 17.4 cents of every dollar, but by 2010, he has that REDUCED to 16.7 cents of every dollar.
Note how the long-term percentages have trended. In JFK's final budget, he had Human Resources at just 29.8 cents of every dollar and JFK had Defense at 46.2 cents of every dollar.
Our security threats are growing, WMDs are proliferating, lunatics with nuclear weapons and long range missiles (or soon to be) control Iran and North Korea, and China's is growing faster than the USA in GDP growth, and their military growth is also rising faster than the USA's. All this, yet President Bush has a declining percentage of total spending going toward Defense.
How many children of illegal aliens will be in the USA by 2010? The birthrate of illegal aliens (and of nontaxpayers as a whole) dwarfs the birthrate of taxpayers. The social welfare spending, including new programs Bush initiated like free downpayments for homes, and global welfare like the Millenium Fund, seem to be the trend for the future in President Bush's vision.
The question we all must ask is where does the social welfare budget stop? From JFK's 29.8% to George Bush's 2010 projection of 67.2%, we have witnessed in our lifetimes the beginning of what many call the "welfare state".
Can we defend our nation at 70% of every dollar going toward welfare? If the trend remains unbroken, what about when it hits 80% of every dollar? The "subtle" 2% rise in welfare spending by 2010, out of a projected $3 TRILLION budget is a lot of money and a significant exacerbation of an already sickly trend.
All the debates over the last ten years about the growing welfare state were rooted in fact for those complaining about the ugly trend in rising welfare. Being that President Bush projects the trend to continue, and being the Defense portion of the budget declines as threats abroad rise, the debate in the coming years is sure to get even more heated, and the theat to America as we once knew her even more gravely apparent.
NOTE: "welfare" as mentioned in the body of the article is not just "welfare" as the official welfare programs are. "Welfare" is as broad a term as the funtion "Human Resources" is, covering everything from job trainng, grants to school, free housing, new programs like free downpayment for homes, Medicaid, and many others. Yes, the trends are very alarming from both a defense of this nation angle (and the ability to afford to do that), and the growing state of socialism in the USA.
"Compassionate" Conservatism is nothing more than socialism. GWB may be the biggest socialist president this country has ever had.
"GWB may be the biggest socialist president this country has ever had."
When you factor in his insidious Medicare increases, statistically, he IS the biggest socialist.
What should concern us all the most is the lack of focus on the USA and the citizens of this nation. I wish we were more isolationist and more nationalistic. That would slash the global welfare spending and increase our national security. Domestically, we must reverse the welfare and make people use the opportunities we give them, or the USA as a whole will go the route of California--possible bankrptcy.
Actually, with the beginning of the Baby Boom retiring and starting S.S., I'm surprised it's not a bigger increase in "Human Resource" spending.
In addition, you must factor in the global welfare and the cancelation of foreign debt, both of which shold show President Bush to be the biggest of all time.
What about the future? How can this nation survive with these unbroken trends in rising welfare and lower Defense? China does not have to go to war to take over America. All she has to do is wait and sweep up the ashes, shoudl these dangerous trends not be reversed.
Do we honestly think RAT Hillary Clinton in 2009 will reverse these trends? That is even more alarming.
Agreed. We have to remember President Bush and Congress told us the Prescription Drug Bill would cost $400 BILLION, and then the micro-second the ink dried on the signature by Bush, it was raised to over $1 TRILLION! This coul dbe a lowball figure also.
You are very correct. There will be a MASSIVE increase in welfare with Medicare and Social Security when the boomers retire. Also, don't forget the drop in tax revenue! The baby boomers are the largest taxpayers in the nation. Revenue could plunge when they retire.
"Agreed. We have to remember President Bush and Congress told us the Prescription Drug Bill would cost $400 BILLION, and then the micro-second the ink dried on the signature by Bush, it was raised to over $1 TRILLION! This coul dbe a lowball figure also."
Not only did Bush tell us this $400 Billion lie, but he then threatened to fire the guy who told him that the figure was probably closer to $800 billion!! Of course, that guy was right...
I've said this before here (and been attacked for it), but JFK was actually further to the right than GWB.
My point isn't to attack Bush in particular. Its that the country has been steadily drifting to the left. Its so insiduous that most people who call themselves "conservatives" don't even notice it.
"That would slash the global welfare spending.."
Actually our "global" welfare spending isn't all that huge as a percentage. Its really our "local" welfare spending (i.e. money we give back to various groups of Americans in various ways) that's the problem.
I'm afraid this is not going to change. Its a matter of politics. Its too easy for politicains to buy votes with someone elses money - no mattter if there's an R or a D after their name. Look at Bush and Katrina.
"Do we honestly think RAT Hillary Clinton in 2009 will reverse these trends? That is even more alarming."
Of course not. But what even more troubling to me is that we can't even assume a Republican will reverse these trends either.
No doubt JFK was more to the right than GWB. That is not even debateable. Heck, the OMB figures are jst one of many ways to prove that. Considering JFK's reaction to the Cuban missile crisis, JFK surely would not allow an outright invasion of America by Mexico to take place if he were president today.
Anybody who denies that Bush is to the left of JFK just is not debating in an honest manner.
It is always fun to watch the great theorists ruminate. They love to accuse the president and use words they don't even know the meaning of to do so.
Those who know that Bush is not to the left of JFK are familiar with the history of the latter and are not intoxicated by wild rhetoric.
That was an ugly and sick response to Katrina. There was no comon sense applied, just a sick throw money at political correctness, like the $2000 debit cards to welfare groupoies who got everything free in the first place. Talk to any FR member with a relative who worked in a retail store in that area and they will tell you the luxury items that were purchased with those debit cards. That was a very black mark on president Bush's record. The BILLIONS being spent on the levee system is even worse, considering the Orleans Levee District was responsbile for the deterioration. An honest aproach would have been to have a full, indepent analysis done on the feasibility of various rebuilding phases of NO (go or no go). That was not done. When you spend megab-billions without a feasability study, it is just another example showing you are correct, money is thrown out there to buy votes and appease the Marxists in the press.
This alarming trend will prove fatal to the survival of the United States. We simply can't keep this trend of rising social spending, declining military spending in place and hope to survive.
What ruminations?
What accusations?
What words we don't knwo meaning about?
Explain yourself.
"Compassionate" Conservatism is nothing more than socialism. GWB may be the biggest socialist president this country has ever had.
Note to gop faithful: "you've been had."
History is proven with facts, and the facts show you are dead wrong.
It is interesting in that this article has FACTS in it. It is also interesting that your critique is pure OPINION.
Facts trump opinion.
Great. Let's work with this. Past spending is reality. Budget projections are opinion. Let me know if we're not still together. When the third party idiots got Clinton elected in '92, defense was about 20% of spending. Clinton got it down to about 15%. Every year since '01 GW Bush has been increasing the percent of total budget spending on defense. Most spending increases have been for defense.
Let's not sucker gullible freepers into some 3rd party crap that gets Hillary in power. Maybe sometime later when we're not at war, but not now.
Socialism is the first of the vocabulary building. It ain't just a welfare state.
Accusations against the President which are nothing more than wild and inflammatory rhetoric are useless.
You are apparently unaware that much of the electorate must be bought off in order to maintain national security.
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.