The spending increases were necessary to deal with a recession and the WOT. As a practical Republican I think those are concessions you make to stay in power and solve the problems that can be solved.
You maybe right. What we really should do during a recession and a time of war is reduce spending. That's a good argument. Me, I'm willing to take out a loan if my car breaks down, my kids want to go to college, or I need to buy a gun really quick because my neighbors have threatened to kill me.
Clinton got a balanced budget from the Congress at the expense of our military, but his spending in 95 was 20.7% of GDP. Reagan's in 85 was 22.8% of GDP. Dubya's was 19.9% in 05. So far Dubya's budgets have all been smaller in terms of GDP than the Reagan/Bush budgets. The budgets Dubya signed are not much higher than the 18.4% and 18.6% GPD spending of the lowest budgets clinton signed.
In light of the facts, and the context of reality, characterizing Dubya's modest increases from the late 90's budgets as "liberal" sounds like slavish conservative misrepresentation.
No other President has fought a major conflict without raising taxes since before the Civil War. But like you, I'm very happy the President is pushing to cut some fat out of government, and I hope to hear more.
I agree that excessive Federal spending is counter productive. We have to convince the voters, and that is hard because America has always looked to government to fix problems and we have thrived with a deficit for most of our history.
I think as we get closer to election time we will see a stark contrast between the cuts Republicans want to make, and the increases rats demand. Cynical conservatives and their rat counterparts will interprete this as Republicans submitting to the demands of the base but actually they will be responding to changing public opinion and a satisfied electorate that finally willing to tighten the belt.
We may also see a conflict in Iran soon, and you may be reminded of another big difference between rats and Republicans. If Iran is solved by the end of Dubya term, or near the begining of his successor we will again be able to balance the budget by gutting the military, and people will talk about the terrorism dividend like Reagan's peace dividend.
Wow, I didn't know that once-Ler. Good points.
Half right, half wrong. The Bush trillion dollar Medicare PDP, his doubling of the Education budget and signing off on three huge spending bills for transportation, farming and energy did nothing to deal with the recession. That is Keynesian economics as formulated by John M. Keynes, not the supply side economics and limited government made famous by Ronald Reagan.
In addition, Bush not using his veto pen to demand the GOP Congress reduce pork barrel spending has only exacerbated the federal budget problems. Last year there were over 15,000 earmarks totalling some $50 billion in excessive waste, fraud and abuse. Let our CongressCritters put their names onto bills and follow the legislative process.
PresBush was smart in one aspect. He took a page out of PresReagan's playbook and dealt with the recession using supply side tax cuts. Bush pushed through tax cuts that stimulated spending, savings and investment. That gave the economy a jolt and lessoned the effects of the short economic downturn.
National defense is a Constitutional mandate. OTOH, advocating a liberal fiscal policy that allows huge increases to government spending and bureaucracy aren't part of any "practical Republican" policy I know of. Again, that is Keynesian economics. For the last five years Bush and the GOP have shown they're liberal spenders of the taxpayers money.
>>>>>Clinton got a balanced budget from the Congress at the expense of our military, but his spending in 95 was 20.7% of GDP. Reagan's in 85 was 22.8% of GDP. Dubya's was 19.9% in 05. So far Dubya's budgets have all been smaller in terms of GDP than the Reagan/Bush budgets. The budgets Dubya signed are not much higher than the 18.4% and 18.6% GPD spending of the lowest budgets clinton signed.
Clinton reached a balanced budget not becasue of anything he advocated, but because of what the GOP controlled Congress forced him to do. The Contract With America held his feet to the fire on spending. Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and Trent Lott kept Clinton in check. They tightened spending, reformed welfare and gave us tax reform. The same economic steps Reagan took in the 1980`s. It's called, fiscal conservatism.
>>>>So far Dubya's budgets have all been smaller in terms of GDP than the Reagan/Bush budgets.
I don't think government spending versus gross domestic product in real economic terms has that much relevent meaning. Its used primarily by people who want to give cover to the big government Democrats and Republicans who dwell inside the BeltWay. As a goal, conservatives would support shrinking the federal bureaucracy to 15% of GDP for starters and taking it down each year, eventually reaching a 10% figure. More then enough cash to run the US government per the Constitution.
A major reason for the high spending in the 1980`s, was Reagan's increases in defense. Reagan spent 24.8%-28.1% of his eight annual budget on national defense. Bush43 has spent 17.3%-19.9% on defense. By 2009 that is estimated to be at 16.9%. Reagan's big defense budgets paid off. We won the Cold War, dismantled the USSR and the communist states of the Eastern Bloc. Reagan's policies freed 500 million people from totalitarianism.
>>>>In light of the facts, and the context of reality, characterizing Dubya's modest increases from the late 90's budgets as "liberal" sounds like slavish conservative misrepresentation.
Spoken like a good liberal Republican. As I already mentioned, Bush's trillion dollar Medicare PDP --- the biggest increase in government spending since Medicare itself was created in the 1960`s under LBJ --- his doubling of the Education budget and signing off on three huge spending bills for transportation, farming and energy have nothing to do with fiscal conservatism. And Bush`s promise to spend whatever it takes to rebuild the gulf coast after Katrina, was not the rhetoric of fiscal responsibile leader.
>>>>No other President has fought a major conflict without raising taxes since before the Civil War.
That is a terrible analogy. The federal government was no where near the size back during the Civil War, that it is today. Today, federal income taxes take roughly 20% of the average workers paycheck. Isn't that enough for you? 10% should be more then enough.
You can't have it both ways. Either you're a fiscal conservative or you're not. From your rhetoric, you've been paying lip service to the idea of Bush and the GOP Congress behaving in a fiscally responsibile fashion. I don't see Bush reversing his five years of liberal spending and expanding the federal bureaucracy. Bush`s latest budget comes in at $2.7 trillion. I rest my case.
Small corrections:
In 2005, federal spending was 20.1% of GDP (per CBO). In 2001 when Bush took office, it was 18.5%. You are correct that spending is a smaller % of GDP than under Reagan or Bush I. Unfortunately, it all comes after a long period (1991-2001) of decreasing spending as a % of GDP.
Increased spending and/or cutting taxes and deficit spending are certainly ways to help ease a recession. However, when the economy rebounds, you need to return to a balance and not continue deficit spending. Which means cutting back on spending and/or increasing taxes. Now if you ticked up taxes to the mid 90s levels of 18.5% of GDP (a 5.6% raise) and restrained spending to increases at the rate of core inflation (~2% in 2005), we could be back to an ON-BUDGET balance by 2010 (assuming 3.8% GDP growth, about average during the 90s). Make that a 2.8% raise instead and you're looking at 2011 (ie, the 25% bracket becomes 25.7%, etc). Of course, tax increases stink, so make it 0% and you'd have to constrain spending until 2017.
IMHO, it is CRUCIAL to get to an on-budget balance before SS starts calling on its "trust fund". Otherwise you have to reissue debt from the trust fund to the general public, which can cause more of a "cash crunch" and interest rates will climb (and inflation?).
Time for a balanced budget amendment requiring pay-go rules with a default to inflation-adjusted increases...