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.
You're the one who said you couldn't take it anymore and was fed up, so being somewhat intelligent, that means you are angry, correct? This has nothing to do with me needing to taunt you because I'm a Bushbot......oooooohh, that is childish.
Yes I did, so I guess it's fair for you to address my frustration. If he was my next door neighbor I'd love to play cards or go plinking with him on the north forty. I am not angry with him and I don't think I called you a Bushbot.
So, you are angry, and that somehow makes your ideas...right?
I can appreciate that it looks like I'm angry, and if you wish to think that I am, that's okay.
Reading your gripe list, no one, anywhere, can do those things as there is no mandate to do it. This is the reality, plus your list is boilerplate.
Just so we get this straight, the ideals we used to consider conservative are now boiler plate and what Bush is doing is conservative. Okay, I understand your position now. Sadly 75% of what Bush is doing now is what was known as liberal Socialist democrat boiler plate until the spring of 2000.
And don't accuse me of being dishonest because I don't share your goals, as if they are somehow more noble than anyone else's.
This isn't about you being dishonest for not sharing my goals, but don't come here and review a list of cosnervative issues then call it boiler plate and refuse to accept it for what it is. Just one of these issues, big government spending isn't conservative. You can't simply change what is conservative and what isn't because Bush does or doesn't do it.
I have differing expectations that you, but will that stop you from accusing someone like me from being a mind numbed robot?
I don't believe I did call you a Bushbot. I went back through our complete exchange, and unless I missed it, I didn't. Now I may have implied that through my comments, but I'm not sure what you want me to do if I address what have been conservative ideals for the last 25 years, and you call them boiler plate.
You just wanna fight and be pissed off and grind your teeth...what you demand will never come to pass, except on the margins, which requires TIME.Having taxes be at 20% of GNP vs 23% is about all i expect, so don't piss on me because your dreams can't come true.
Despite you colorful euphemisms, I'm trying to tell you I can't support a man who is ruling in the manner Bush is. I do support some of what he does, but other things are so outside the bounds I cannot sign on. I'm not the only guy in the class to raise these questions. If you want to dismiss my opinion, that's your choice, but this opinion does exist, it's not as outside the mainstream as you might wish it to be. And in the long run, I thing the Bush people are going to have to either deal with it or accept the results. Now those results may be infantesimile. If so, you and your policy wins. I don't think conservatism or the nation does.
155 posted on 08/01/2003 8:25 PM PDT by habs4ever
"...when one is eventually lofted for us...
So what you are now trying to tell me, is that when you said "until one is LOFTED FOR US", that meant that you would do the lofting?
OK EVERYONE!
YOU WILL NEED A COUPLE OF THESE TO FOLLOW THE SPINNING BRIGADIER'S EXPLANATIONS!
Pleasure to meet you.
You didn't, but you are enamored with the sound of your fingers hitting the keys.
Projetion is a cureable mental disorder. You'd think that those sufferring from it would get help; but they don't. Pity that.
Let's just stick with our own nics, shall we ? Other people's shameless renamings are only mildly amusing and invalid. LOL
And seeing that the country is split down the middle, that isn't too easy.
I see you still gain rave reviews from the fans.
Right, that's the crack in which we find our rear ends now. We really have no choice as things stand today. We can vote for W, and continue the expansion of government at this insane pace, with no secure borders and no end in sight to the spending, or we get a Democrat and we're really shafted. (Can you imagine President Hillary with the Patriot Act at her disposal? )
The silver lining is the fact that we MIGHT get some decent judges appointed, and we MIGHT get abortion outlawed at the Federal level. And we MIGHT win this war domestically if W can get over the PC philosophy that he's too familiar with, and abroad if he decides to deal with the Saudis once and for all.
So we are stuck with the Republicans, domestically the Democrats of the 80's. yay team.
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.