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

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul - The Ever-Growing Federal Budget
House Web Site ^ | 2-13-2006 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

Posted on 02/13/2006 9:06:54 AM PST by jmc813

 

The Bush administration released a proposed 2007 budget last week that increases federal spending to a staggering $2.77 trillion, a sum that is 4 times larger than the Reagan-era budgets of the early 1980s.   With a public angry about useless earmarks and bridges to nowhere, and a Republican congressional delegation promising to restore some small measure of fiscal discipline, it's troubling that the administration chooses to ignore economic reality and increase spending without regard to revenues and deficits.

Consider these sobering facts:

·     With a 7% rate of growth, federal spending will double in just 14 years.   It once took 100 years to double the federal budget.

·     Federal spending has grown twice as fast under Bush than Clinton, averaging 6 and 7% increases compared to the 3 and 4% increases of the 1990s. 

·     The biggest increases in federal spending under Bush are not related to the war on terror or homeland security.   Education spending, for example, grew a whopping 137% between 2001 and 2005.

·     The projected deficit for 2006 is $423 billion, $100 billion more than 2005.   The real 2006 deficit, including the $5 billion per week we spend in Iraq, will be much, much higher.

·     The administration will ask for at least $120 billion in so-called "off budget" funds for Iraq and Afghanistan over the next year, perpetuating the deception that war spending somehow doesn't count toward the budget deficit.

·     The new Medicare prescription drug benefit will cost at least $30 billion in 2006, and is projected to cost $1.2 trillion over the coming decade.  The program creates an unfunded liability twice the size of future Social Security obligations.

There has been a great deal of talk in Washington about scandals lately, but few seem to understand that enormous federal budgets provide the mother's milk for every backroom deal, questionable earmark, and sleazy lobbying trick.   Like many of my Republican colleagues who curiously vote for enormous budget bills, I campaign on a simple promise that I will work to make government smaller.   This means I cannot vote for any budget that increases spending over previous years.  In fact, I would have a hard time voting for any budget that did not slash federal spending by at least 25%, especially when we consider that the federal budget in 1990 was far less than half what it is today.   Did anyone really think the federal government was not big enough just 16 years ago?

 
Neither political party wants to address the fundamental yet unspoken issues inherent in any budget proposal:   What is the proper role for government in our society?  Are these ever-growing entitlement and military expenditures really consistent with a free country?   Do the proposed expenditures, and the resulting taxes, make us more free or less free?  Should the government or the marketplace provide medical care?   Should the U.S. military be used to remake whole nations?  Are the programs, agencies, and departments funded in the budget proposal constitutional?   Are they effective?  Could they operate with a smaller budget?  Would the public even notice if certain items were eliminated altogether?   These are the kinds of questions the American people should ask, even if Congress lacks the courage to apply any principles whatsoever to the budget process.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: 109th; budget; federalspending; ronpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: jeremiah

oooh!


21 posted on 02/13/2006 10:02:02 AM PST by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

Who was it that said, "Engage the world in commerce, but make no political alliances."? Sounds good to me.


22 posted on 02/13/2006 10:10:04 AM PST by DX10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

"...not corporations who seem to be in control of federal and state governments these days."

So far as I understand that is the definition of a corporate fascist state and I agree with you. That is what we have.

As long as both parties get the $$$ from the corporate "heads" who take far too much in salaries and underpay their workers and their investors, our "leaders" will continue to bilk the citizens of the country.


23 posted on 02/13/2006 10:26:44 AM PST by Spirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

Our GOP misrepresentatives have nothing to worry about, being in the majority. I'll have to go with a Republican president, and a demonrat congress next time. I'm totally sick of this waste clogging up the DC toilet.


24 posted on 02/13/2006 10:36:07 AM PST by AmericanChef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

Bump.


25 posted on 02/13/2006 10:37:07 AM PST by Paul Ross (Hitting bullets with bullets successfully for 35 years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

W needs to Veto some spending bills.


26 posted on 02/13/2006 10:52:03 AM PST by GeorgefromGeorgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

Ron Paul on lobbyist reform, quite excellent...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1554737/posts



27 posted on 02/13/2006 10:56:30 AM PST by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/israel_palestine_conflict.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spirited
"...not corporations who seem to be in control of federal and state governments these days."

So far as I understand that is the definition of a corporate fascist state and I agree with you. That is what we have.

As long as both parties get the $$$ from the corporate "heads" who take far too much in salaries and underpay their workers and their investors, our "leaders" will continue to bilk the citizens of the country.

Couldn't agree more. Seems Ben Stein recently figured this out as well.

28 posted on 02/13/2006 11:29:01 AM PST by getsoutalive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: soccer_maniac

No kidding. Who says the GOP isn't the Progressive party?


29 posted on 02/13/2006 11:32:00 AM PST by BJClinton (St. Fu - the Patron Saint of Ninjas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
What is the proper role for government in our society?

The answer is clear for this administration.

"I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"
...GWB, 7-23-04

30 posted on 02/13/2006 11:41:49 AM PST by Protagoras (If jumping to conclusions was an Olympic event, FR would be the training facility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SQUID
"National Referendum on major policy issues should be made possible."

Not only should it be made possible, it should be started NOW. Sadly, the 'Pubs have acted against nearly every principle that I voted for them for. The term disenfranchised used to apply to "them," now it's me.

I will work for and vote for every non-democrat, non-incumbant, conservative/libertarian, I can in every primary and election I can.

Trimming the pork starts with the pigs...
31 posted on 02/13/2006 1:31:51 PM PST by pop-aye (For every journey, there is a higher path.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 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