Posted on 08/01/2003 6:05:23 PM PDT by Harlequin
The Bush administration's newly released budget projections reveal an anticipated budget deficit of $450 billion for the current fiscal year, up another $151 billion since February. Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the fact is we have mounting deficits because George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the "Mother of All Big Spenders."
The new estimates show that, under Bush, total outlays will have risen $408 billion in just three years to $2.272 trillion: an enormous increase in federal spending of 22 percent. Administration officials privately admit that spending is too high. Yet they argue that deficits are appropriate in times of war and recession. So, is it true that the war on terrorism has resulted in an increase in defense spending? Yes. And, is it also true that a slow economy has meant a decreased stream of tax revenues to pay for government? Yes again.
But the real truth is that national defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.
Now, most rational people would cut back on their spending if they knew their income was going to be reduced in the near future. Any smart company would look to cut costs should the business climate take a turn for the worse. But the administration has been free spending into the face of a recessionary economy from day one without making any serious attempt to reduce costs.
The White House spinmeisters insist that we keep the size of the deficit "in perspective." Sure it's appropriate that the budget deficit should be measured against the relative size of the economy. Today, the projected budget deficit represents 4.2 percent of the nation's GDP. Thus the folks in the Bush administration pat themselves on the back while they remind us that in the 1980s the economy handled deficits of 6 percent. So what? Apparently this administration seems to think that achieving low standards instead of the lowest is supposed to be comforting.
That the nation's budgetary situation continues to deteriorate is because the administration's fiscal policy has been decidedly more about politics than policy. Even the tax cuts, which happened to be good policy, were still political in nature considering their appeal to the Republican's conservative base. At the same time, the politicos running the Bush reelection machine have consistently tried to placate or silence the liberals and special interests by throwing money at their every whim and desire. In mathematical terms, the administration calculates that satiated conservatives plus silenced liberals equals reelection.
How else can one explain the administration publishing a glossy report criticizing farm programs and then proceeding to sign a farm bill that expands those same programs? How else can one explain the administration acknowledging that entitlements are going to bankrupt the nation if left unreformed yet pushing the largest historical expansion in Medicare one year before the election? Such blatant political maneuvering can only be described as Clintonian.
But perhaps we are being unfair to former President Clinton. After all, in inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration. More importantly, after his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush's three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending.
Sadly, the Bush administration has consistently sacrificed sound policy to the god of political expediency. From farm subsidies to Medicare expansion, purchasing reelection votes has consistently trumped principle. In fact, what we have now is a president who spends like Carter and panders like Clinton. Our only hope is that the exploding deficit will finally cause the administration to get serious about controlling spending.
Much bigger deal than that. It took a lot of skill; he's making it look easy.
Just over there is Gore who would have botched it.
He meant only Iraq.
I have a distinct feeling no matter what some here say you're going to have a lot of company by 2004 if not sooner
-NCBoy
If Bush loses there will be grid lock - I like grid lock - nothing gets passed.
I find what Reagan did to be irrelevant. He was not dealing with a recession, the economic consequences of an attack on our country and the blowup that the Enrons caused. Any one of those things was plateful, Bush has had a damn seven course meal. As I pointed out, if he's at 18%, he's lower than the Dems proposed.
Much friendlier than the House Reagan had to work with under Tip O'Neill.
Tip O'Neill is no comparison to the incompetent and unprincipled Daschle. And this is not to mention that Reagan had a victory of almost 10 points over Carter, before a landslide in 1984. Bush had no such clear mandate.
For Bush to behave as a fiscal conservative would.
I wouldn't admire Bush a bit if, after September 11, he had chosen to divide this country and stoke even further animosity over domestic spending issues at the expense of the war on terrorism, tax cuts, the Senate majority, judicial nominees, and at least the fair shot at another term. I don't think that would have been leadership, it would have been a Carter-like poison that would take years to overcome.
If true, then he would have misplaced his priorities. Since right now, he is more focussed on finding OBL and Saddam as he should be.
Besides, who wants a politically biased judge? Why not have an apolitical non biased judge who rules on the rule of law regardless of their political views? Too much to wish for? Probably, but that is the way the rule of law is/was intended to work.
How did the judiciary become politicized? It's not supposed to be. Is this the end of the rule of law?
not according to the White house. Or did you miss the news?
GWB is missusing the military - they should have a lot more people in there and cut freedoms until the bad guys are out - but that isn't PC is it?
I don't care if the Arabs like us - but we do have the means to make them respect us. While American boys are dropping at about one a day, I think we should be much firmer. If the military is doing police duty, get them the numbers they need to do it right.
I frankly think if we go in to a war we should go in with guns blazing and conquer – totally - to the point that we take over their schools and teach the kids English and capialism. We should be installing Capitalism – but GWB is installing Socialism in Iraq.
I’m no peace nut – but when we use the military let us make gains the last – otherwise we should have stayed home. (I would have been in favor of using a nuke or two to encourage mass surrender if it avoided risk to our men.)
I intend to write in John Stossel.
He expanded the number of people who recieve more money than they pay. That money came from people who pay more than they receive. He may have cut taxes for some, but he increased the redistribution of wealth in the process. The more people there are who pay no income tax, the more people there are who will not resist the growth of governmant.
And your credentials as the exemplar of THE " expert " on war and things military are ... ? You don't know the first thing about this sort of detail.Your way would NOT be better; it would be far worse and also far more detrimental to our goals in the Middle East!
Try researching what it was like when we were doing the same kind of opperation in Germany, after Hitler fell and we were STILL fighting off the Japs.You might actually learn something and at least it would broaden your myopic, ill educated opinion.
Frankly, you haven't a clue. You're all bravado, talk, and little in the way of brains. This isn't the 12th century, or earlier. Heck, even the ancient Romans didn't fight the way you want 21rst.century American to wage war. Your view is that of a child, playing at war.
Give me the name of the non-GOP candidate who will keep Democrats from power next elections.
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.