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

Skip to comments.

Big Government Conservatism
Town Hall ^ | July 31, 2003 | Doug Bandow

Posted on 08/01/2003 12:26:59 PM PDT by TBP

WASHINGTON - We have finally stopped paying for government this year, but just barely. And if the Bush administration has its way, Americans will pay a lot more next year. Never mind his rhetoric: President Bush is an enthusiastic advocate of big government.

The advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform figures the Cost of Government Day was July 11. That's when U.S. citizens finally finished subsidizing government at all levels: taxes, deficits and regulations. Americans spent more than half the year, 193 days, working for politicians rather than themselves and their families.

Republicans blame the Democrats. It's not true.

The Cost of Government Day generally came earlier on the calendar under President Reagan. But it rose under the first President Bush, who made his reputation hiking taxes. Cost of Government Day peaked in 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected president, and fell eight straight years.

Since 2000, Cost of Government Day has moved later on the calendar by 17 days. The increase from last year was five days. The increase under current President Bush is matched only by the rise under his father a decade before.

The principal problem is spending. Outlays are up 13.5 percent over the last three years. And not to fight terrorism.

Non-defense, discretionary outlays have increased 18 percent, far more than during the first three years of the Clinton administration. As my Cato Institute colleague Veronique de Rugy puts it, President Bush "is governing like a Frenchman."

Over the last three years, federal spending increased 2.5 times faster than national income. If outlays had matched national income, the deficit would be only $70 billion, compared to a predicted $475 billion this year. But because of Washington's spending frenzy, the deficit will total $1.9 trillion over the next five years.

Yet on Capitol Hill, the administration is worried about too little, not too much, spending. When the bloated Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill came before the House in early July, the budget office complained:

- Spending on Pell Grants to subsidize college was $465 million lower than requested.

- The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which supplements a score of other welfare programs, was $200 million short of the administration's desire.

- Congress didn't give the administration everything that it wanted for a herd of special interest education programs.

- Congress didn't spend enough on drug treatment, HIV/AIDS programs, child mentoring initiatives, or parental group homes.

- Congress cut the administration's request for paid volunteerism through AmeriCorps.

- There wasn't enough money for health programs or the Social Security Administration.

Not one objection concerned a proposal to spend too much money.

Even worse is the proposed Medicare drug benefit. Pegged at a 10-year cost of $400 billion, the real increase in the government's $13 trillion unfunded liability would be about $6 trillion under the House bill. At its worst, the Senate's measure might almost double that liability.

But no one takes the $400 billion estimate seriously. For one thing, that number stops before the baby-boom wave starts retiring, after which costs will explode.

Equally important, federal benefits always increase demand for subsidized services, and election-minded politicians always increase benefits. Every federal social program has cost far more than originally predicted.

For instance, in 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990, a staggering $95 billion underestimate. Medicare first exceeded $12 billion in 1975.

In 1935, a naive Congress predicted $3.5 billion in Social Security outlays in 1980, one-thirtieth the actual level of $105 billion.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration is almost as enthusiastic about regulating as spending. Analyst Clyde Wayne Crews reports in his annual "Ten Thousand Commandments" that last year the Federal Register devoted 75,606 pages to regulations, more than in 2000, Bill Clinton's last year in office. The number of rules was down, but even so, economists W. Mark Crain and Thomas D. Hopkins figure regulations cost the U.S. economy $860 billion annually.

Regulatory growth follows the same general pattern as do outlays. Most recently, it started rising in 2001, the year President Bush took office, and sped ahead in 2002.

The administration points to its anti-terrorism efforts. But the torrent of new rules has come from the Environmental Protection Agency, Interior Department, and Agriculture Department, as well as the Treasury and Transportation Departments.

Despite his pretense of being a conservative, President Bush actually represents the old conservative U.S. Sen. Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson wing of the Democratic Party, which avidly supported the ever-growing welfare-warfare state. The president is for tax cuts, yes, but advocates increased government spending on just about every government program.

His foreign policy is based on massive government: War around the globe; lengthy occupations and attempts at nation building; increased foreign aid and international social engineering. His domestic program is equally expansive, with more money for education, health care, Medicare, national service, welfare, and more.

How much will Americans have to pay for government next year? It certainly will be more than this year. Everyone in Washington, Republicans and Democrats alike, are now for bigger government.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; bigspenders; bush; clinton; conservatism; conservatives; constitution; constitutionparty; democrats; dougbandow; gop; liberalism; liberals; limitedgovernment; pubbies; republicans; rinos; spending; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
This is why I am no longer comfortable in the Republican Party. It is as much a Big Government party as the Dimmycraps and conservative principles and limited government are much more important to me than any party label.
1 posted on 08/01/2003 12:26:59 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TBP
Unfortunately, many members of the statist goon squad will surely find their way to this thread and box yours ears but good. How dare you question "Conservatism according to George"!!
2 posted on 08/01/2003 12:34:14 PM PDT by Sangamon Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
The Republican Party is still the predominant conservative party in American politics. George W. Bush, at best, is nominally conservative. And he's conservative in his values, not necessarily in his political ideology.

Why should conservatives vote Republican? Consider the alternative (and there's only one).

3 posted on 08/01/2003 12:34:34 PM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
I'm a registered Republican, but my partisan affiliation means as much to me as marriage vows do to Gary Condit. I vote third party more often than not.
4 posted on 08/01/2003 12:40:00 PM PDT by Commander8 (Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
I don't think it is allowed on this forum to suggest we shouldn't drink the GOP KoolAid.
5 posted on 08/01/2003 12:42:19 PM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
The Republican Party is still the predominant conservative party in American politics.

DuuuuuuuuH! Let's see the predominant parties are the democrats and the republicans. Now which is more conservative the socialists or the socialist lites?

6 posted on 08/01/2003 12:43:32 PM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TBP
The issue has nothing to do with GOP vs. Democrat. The real solution to the problem of big government is to have divided government, regardless of party affiliation.
7 posted on 08/01/2003 12:44:23 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Why should conservatives vote Republican? Consider the alternative (and there's only one).

Read the article. The Republicans are just as much a Big Government party as the Democrats. Maybe more so. It is not "the predominant conservative party in America" because it is no longer conservative in any way.

The premise of teh two-party system is that the two parties provide meaningful alternatives. When that premise is violated, then the two-party system is not doing the job it is supposed to do and it is time to seek alternatives.

Yet under Republican governance, the size, cost, and iintrusiveness of government grows even faster than under Democrats! That is no alternative.

What ever happened to "a choice, not an echo"?

8 posted on 08/01/2003 12:48:53 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TBP
When I was a kid the big news was that this date came in late April, then early May - now it's the last of July??! Whisky-Tango-Foxtrot, Over!!
9 posted on 08/01/2003 12:50:40 PM PDT by Ken522
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Maybe it's time for another option. There are more than two parties out there, and if a ton of people start voting for more than Rs and Ds, we can make it viable.
10 posted on 08/01/2003 12:52:59 PM PDT by Quick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
Exactly. When you vote for socialists of either major party, you waste your vote if your goal is to preserve Consitutionally limited government.
11 posted on 08/01/2003 12:55:42 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Just remember that - no matter what this article says - all the increases are due to defense spending, all the increases are only to spur the economy, if you're complaining you never voted for Bush in the first place and you're helping elect Howard Dean by carping at this president.

It also helps to remember that whenever the White House endorses liberal legislation they're compromising, but whenever Democrats endorse conservative legislation they're lying cheats bent on stealing more of our money.

12 posted on 08/01/2003 1:00:08 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TBP
I have always thought that conservatism, contrary to the popular belief, does not really mean the government must spend less.

Conservatism is really about social issues and attitudes, and the way we as a society live our lives.

If the GOP, under Bush, spends more money than the year before, but spends it on non-frivolous programs such as new roads, bridges, the country's defense, oil exploration, etc., then that is OK.

But when the government, usually under the Dems, tries to spend more and more on frivolous things like quota programs, the EEOC, abortion awareness programs, midnight basketball, self esteem classes, etc. --- then people should get upset.

Spending money is not wrong. It is WHAT that money is spent on which makes one a conservative or liberal.

DS
13 posted on 08/01/2003 1:03:09 PM PDT by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dyno35
Spending money is not wrong. It is WHAT that money is spent on which makes one a conservative or liberal.

Where would the Education Bill, Farm Bill and Prescription Drug Benefit fall in your conservative vs. liberal continuum?

14 posted on 08/01/2003 1:04:40 PM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
LOL.
15 posted on 08/01/2003 1:08:58 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Then go ahead and vote Democrat. I suspect you've never voted Republican in your life anyway.
16 posted on 08/01/2003 1:22:38 PM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
I will concede that your point is worth considering. But let's win the war on terror first, and as a side objective, let's throw the Democrat Party onto the ash heap of history, like the Whigs. They've become nothing but a corrupt institution anyway. Once those objectives are achieved, we can debate the emergence of a new conservative party.
17 posted on 08/01/2003 1:24:35 PM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
You lose, sucker. I voted for a Republican for governor just last year. When the Republicans nominate an acceptably conservative candidate, I vote for him. When they don't, I vote for the most conservative person available.

Do you think it advances conservatism somehow to vote for Arlen Specter, Connie Morella, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, and RINOs like that who just go to Washington and vote like Democrats? I don't.
18 posted on 08/01/2003 1:37:15 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Listen, pal, anyone who votes ONCE for a Republican has no right to throw around that "RINO" term. FYI, Olympia Snowe had an American Conservative Union rating last year of 65, while Barbara Boxer had an ACU rating of 5. Don't you dare tell me that folks like Snowe go to Washington and vote like Democrats. You're showing your mental laziness with that paintbrush.
19 posted on 08/01/2003 1:55:27 PM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
So you cite one example from my list (and for ONE year.) The point remains the same: Contrary to what you GOP/Bushie KoolAid drinkers would like to have be true, these RINOs go to Washington and they vote just like Democrats.

Look at the objective results of Republican governance: bigger government, vastly increased spending, new entitlement programs. Do you call this conservatism? I don't. If that is what you think conservatism is, I think you may be on the wrong website.
20 posted on 08/01/2003 2:11:59 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next 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