Posted on 02/06/2006 6:36:45 PM PST by Reagan Man
In the days after the release of President Bush's budget for fiscal 2007, liberal special interests and the Bush Administration will have something in common: both will claim that it outlines deep cuts in spending. Don't believe it.
The budget for fiscal 2007 (which will be begin October 1) proposes aggregate federal spending that is 49% higher than in 2001 (the last Clinton budget). This rampant spending growth during the Bush years is the cause of our current large federal budget deficits (which had been vanquished in the late 1990s). The President's budget projects a deficit in 2007 of $354 billion. If Bush and the Republican Congress had merely held federal spending growth to 4% annually since 2001, the President would instead be projecting a surplus of $58 billion.
In his "Budget Message," Bush writes, "Last year, I proposed to hold overall discretionary spending growth below the rate of inflation -- and Congress delivered on that goal." The President's own budget numbers reveal this claim as false. Total discretionary outlays for fiscal 2005 were $968.5 billion, and in 2006, they are projected to be $1,032.1 billion; an increase of 6.6% (far higher than the rate of inflation).
For several years, the administration has been trying to focus attention on the budget numbers for non-defense/non-security discretionary spending. This is relatively meaningless, since spending on defense, mandatory programs (Medicare, Social Security, farm subsidies, etc.), and homeland security accounts for about 83% of federal spending. Restraint in just a tiny portion (17%) of the federal budget -- even if the claims were true -- is hardly an accomplishment.
But the budget numbers reveal that there has been great spending growth all over the federal government. For instance, under Bush’s budget, federal education spending will be $64.5 billion in 2007. Expect Congress to enlarge this number, but even if they just enact what the President has proposed, it will mean that federal education outlays will have grown faster since 2001 (up 81%) than defense (up 74%). Other low priority departments (many of which should be abolished) will also be much larger in 2007 than in 2001 (Agriculture: 36%, Commerce: 32%, Housing and Urban Development: 32%, Labor: 34%).
Large increases in non-defense discretionary spending, the disastrous Medicare prescription drug bill, and to date a failure to reform Social Security have left the Bush Administration (and Republican Congress) with a terrible fiscal track record. The President’s new budget does little to turn this record around. Mr. Berthoud is President of the 350,000-member National Taxpayers Union (www.ntu.org).
This should make true conservatives nauseous. The Republican Party needs to be a little less haughty about winning recent elections. Perhaps it's just a case of people wanting Big Government/Strong Defense rather than Big Government/Weak Defense. It's that and the fact that the Democratric leadership has embraced fringe groups on the social issues.
Republicans are barely beating an opposition party that is intellectually bankrupt.
Medved was talking about this today--mostly the spending on Social Security and how it is going to be disastrous for this country.
A strong national defense is a Constitutional mandate. Big government is a matter of knowing when to say YES and when to say NO, when spending time rolls around. IOW, America can be strong militarily and still advance a more conservative agenda of spending reforms and limited government. What we have today inside the Beltway, is a GOP President and a GOP Congress who are out of control when it comes to spending the taxpayers money.
Only way to cut the defecit is to fix social security and dems have said they will filibuster a cut in the rate of growth of social security.
Last year's budget had 39 billion in spending cuts and all the dems voted against it. The rinos from the northeast had to be begged to vote for just those cuts.
Bush would propose far bigger cuts if he had the votes. If he had a bigger margin in the house where he could go around the rinos he would be able to cut more from the budget.
The worst position to be in congress is to have a small majority in the house with rinos holding the power and less than 60 seats in the senate.
The biggest joke is that the media says the republicans control congress even though it takes 5 democrats to get any legislation passed through the senate.
How do the republicans control congress when repubicans need harry reid and the trial lawyers approval to pass legislation on medical malpractice reform.
Bush has a minority govt. You need 60 seats in the senate for a majority govt.
Todays Republicans-
The New Socialists.
ping
W is allowing more budget approvals tha LBJ. W is strong national security; as he should be. However W is blind in vetoing huge spending bills. I would like to know if W has EVER vetoed any bill.
There is not a gop congress.
Damn these lies are going to hurt good conservatives.
Take out the rinos from the northeast and you have no majority in the house.
Look at the last budget vote. It passed 216-214 with no democrat support. There are only 230 house republicans and at least 30 of them are rinos that vote ilke democrats.
If the rinos didn't hold the balance of power in congress the budget cuts would be far greater.
The republicans want to fix the trilliion dollars in spending in social security. But you blame the republicans when the dems blocked social security. Did you see the state of the union and hillary laughing that she blocked bush from fixing the budget by correcting social security rate of growth.
Can we finally stop the lie that republicans control congress.
That is the worst lie out there. How does the Gop control congress when they have only 55 seats in the senate and it takes 60 seats to stop a filibuster in the senate.
I hope the dems retake congress. Because having less than 60 seats in the senate is not having a majority. You need harry reid's approval to fix social security.
They need to change the language. A party needs over 60 seats in the senate for their leader to be called majority leader.
If you don't have 60 seats in the senate you have no power in congress.
Republicans are great at eating their own. Instead of putting the blame on the dems and northeastern rinos they blame the whole party.
The republican bashers deserve hillary rodham clinton and pelosi.
This must be what he meant by "compassionate conservative."
Baloney. When you spend like a liberal and keep your veto pen dry, why should Democrats get too upset. The GOP didn't control the purse strings during Reagan's Presidency, yet he was able to cut non-defense related discretionary programs and reduce overall welfare entitlement spending. How quickly we forget. Bush43 is a big government Republican.
Bush wants to correct the budget by fixing social security and the dems blocked him.
The only way to fix spending is to fix social security. That is the problem.
Didn't you see the dems at the state of the union rising up to applaud that they stopped the cuts to the rate of growth for social security.
Bush's base are traitors. Instead of blaming the dems they blame Bush. Harry Reid is refusing to change the earmark process.
Bush has a veto pen. He has yet to use it. Takes 67 senate votes to override it.
As much as we like to disparage Gerald Ford on this site, he vetoed the bejabbers out of spending bills.
The real problem with the GOP is not a lack of 60 votes in the Senate. The real problem is now that they have power, they have succumbed to its temptations at all levels - the other day, GOP mayors came out in favor of Kelo. Upon reading that, I became an indenpendent, because I no longer recognize the party of my parents and grandparents.
So screw both the Constitution and the base that voted him into office.
"the other day, GOP mayors came out in favor of Kelo"
source please?
It takes 60 votes to get anything done in the senate.
It takes 60 votes to change social security.
Bush had the courage to say he wanted to stop the rate of growth of social security and the dems wrote a letter to bush saying they would filibuster.
The problem with spending is social security. And bush wanted to change it and the dems blocked him.
Lets blame Bush for the dems blocking social security.
Lets blame Bush for not one dem crossing party lines to vote for the budget cuts in the bill last week in the house.
Lets blame Bush for republicans not having 60 votes in the senate to change social security, which gives bush the power.
You are a troll. Bush wants to fix social security and the dems want to keep the high rate of growth.
You are a dem partisan hack. Bush showed great courage going after social security. And your thanks is to blame him instead of the dems.
Dems want no earmark reform.
Every dem voted against the 39 billion in budget cuts last week.
Stop the bush bashing it is getting old. Gop has a very slim hold of the house. The rinos from the northeast have the power. With no dem support and the rinos gop leaders did the best they could with the 39 billion in cuts.
Clinton gave us 9/11, which lead to two wars. Bush has had 7 major hurricanes.
The dems are screaming that bush didn't say he would spend hundreds of billions more in his state of the union.
Bush took great heat from Kerry and the dems for refusing kyoto and universal health care.
I hope you get hillary who will give you a trillions in universal hillary care.
Hillary voted against the 39 billion in budget cuts.
Hillary blocked social security reform.
You deserve her and pelosi.
Bush's base sucks they gave us ruth bader ginsberg by voting for perot.
They will scream at Bush instead of blaming the real enemy the democrats.
That is not what I am saying.
What I am saying is that if you want to stay in control...you can't shock the heck out of the middle. That's what. You turn them around (again) and you get them headed in the right direction. As they begin to trust you, and your intentions, you can speed it up.
As much as I agree with certain things Goldwater said, there was a reason we never had a President Goldwater. He scared the heck out of the middle.
It isn't an easy thing, but it is the nature of American politics and it was intentionally built into them by our founding fathers. We didn't get here in 20 years. We're not going to get out of it for a lot longer than that.
Bush has no line item spending veto power. Supreme court liberals like ruth bader ginsberg took it away.
Voting for perot really worked out. You voters gave us ginsberg and breyer. Talk about crash and burn strategy. The most clueless voters of all time.
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.