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

Skip to comments.

CATO Institute lambastes President Bush
CATO Institute ^ | July 31, 2003 | Veronique de Rugy and Tad DeHaven

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cato; conservative; economic; libertarians; veroniquederugy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 361-367 next last
To: Luis Gonzalez
You seem to love the largesse of centralized government.
201 posted on 08/01/2003 9:35:59 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
Barbra Striesand !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
202 posted on 08/01/2003 9:36:08 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Harlequin
The irony is, the left hates him just as much if not more than they would have if he hadn't been trying to buy them off.
203 posted on 08/01/2003 9:36:29 PM PDT by SupplySider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
[Cato]:3 year % change in Real Discretionary Spending During Reagan and Bush's Firsts Terms

What does a "3 year % change".... in a first term mean?

Why not go with simply the % change in the first term?

204 posted on 08/01/2003 9:37:13 PM PDT by FreeReign (V5.0 Enterprise Edition)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
What?

Tonight you're into mind reading?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

On this thread, the question I've raised is do you support for president in the coming election?

Come on, join the debate and tell us what candidate you have that can run against the Dems.

Impress me, and see if you can actually put up three posts without being offensive.
205 posted on 08/01/2003 9:39:02 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Yo soy la Cuba libre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: jeremiah
"The fiscal conservatives".

How much money is your country worth to you?
206 posted on 08/01/2003 9:39:50 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Yo soy la Cuba libre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
"Hi there rude and miserable excuse for a human who's attitude sucks, I'm infantile buchbot argo-con boot licker."

And I'm more people than Sybil was.

207 posted on 08/01/2003 9:41:27 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Yo soy la Cuba libre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
You're the Libertarian Party?
208 posted on 08/01/2003 9:42:44 PM PDT by CWOJackson (go pat go,,,going, going....gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
No!

Sybil had more personalities than the Libertarian Party has members.
209 posted on 08/01/2003 9:48:17 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Yo soy la Cuba libre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
>>>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.

Irrelevent!!! No recession!!! You can't be serious.

When Reagan took office, the US economy was in recession. In fact, Reagan inheritied from Jimmah Carter, the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. Mortgage interest rates hit 18.9%, inflation hit 13.5% and unemployment was at 7.6%, peaking at 9.7% the following year.

When Reagan left office eight years later, mortgage interest rates were at 8.2%, inflation was lowered to 4.1% and unemployment was at 5.5%. I'd call that a complete economic turnabout and all American's benefited from Reagan's powerful economic recovery plan.

In the 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, Reagan gave American's real tax reform, lowering the marginal tax rates from a high of 70% to 50%. Then in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Reagan again lowered the top rate from 50% to 28%, giving American workers a simple two tier tax system and more money in their pockets.

Reagan also was preparing for a huge military build up to fight the final battle in the 40 year old Cold War.

210 posted on 08/01/2003 9:48:39 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: zchip
Rewarding the GOP with another four years of Bush is no different than rewarding North Korea with economic aide.

It simply encorages bad behavior.

You guys are right there is currently no alternative candidate that could win.

The best thing that WILL happen to the CONSERVATIVE movement is going to be when Bush loses in '04.

GOP will then have to recognize its conservative members or contiune right on losing.
211 posted on 08/01/2003 9:49:32 PM PDT by Kay Soze (My Barry Goldwater doll is weeping at the thought of losing the GOP to the moderates and socialists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
I gotta tell you guy, I have only been part of the Constipated And Ticked Off brigade for a couple of hours and I'm just not getting the hang of it. Reality just keeps seeping in and ruining the whole CATO thing for me.

I'm sorry but I think I'm going to have to give it up and just continue dealing with the real world.

212 posted on 08/01/2003 9:50:16 PM PDT by CWOJackson (go pat go,,,going, going....gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I plan to vote for Bush, much like I did for his dad, because a third party split means a Dem wins. But there are many out there (remember the Perot voters) who aren't thinking that deeply in a political way. If the war slows down emotionally, they may bolt. There are many people who are upset with the spending increases. The part that makes it so hard to take is that it's largely unnecessary. W has gained NOTHING by the Kennedy education bill, Ted still stabs him at every turn. The AARP is still mass mailing propaganda, despite the prescription drug giveaway.

Compromise is one thing, but this is capitulation. I'm all for him, but is the feeling mutual?

213 posted on 08/01/2003 9:51:01 PM PDT by ovrtaxt ( Support real tax reform - HR 25! See http://www.fairtax.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Ouch...I hurt my side on that one. Darn you!
214 posted on 08/01/2003 9:51:18 PM PDT by CWOJackson (go pat go,,,going, going....gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
The DNC appreciates your support.
215 posted on 08/01/2003 9:52:34 PM PDT by CWOJackson (go pat go,,,going, going....gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
So which do you fear most? You're other Sybillic personality or the Libertarian party?
216 posted on 08/01/2003 9:53:41 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (stand for freedom or get the helloutta the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
A bankrupt country, cannot be in a position to defend our way of life, or the constitution. How soon will we have a Trillion dollar deficit in one year?
217 posted on 08/01/2003 9:53:46 PM PDT by jeremiah (Sunshine scares all of them, for they all are cockaroaches)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
Big Gov't is here to stay and will never go away, so why can't you try to face that fact and work to ameliorate its effects at the margins? Tax cuts, sunseting regulations and having sensible tort reform coupled with a centrist based judiciary is the best you can expect.The nirvanna of a Goldwater rollback in government is, well, foolish.

You forgot to add "eh?"

218 posted on 08/01/2003 10:05:26 PM PDT by nunya bidness (sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Irrelevent!!! No recession!!! You can't be serious.

Either I didn't write clearly or you didn't read it clearly. Bush had a recession, an attack on this country with a catastrophic impact on the economy and the Wall Street blowup.

219 posted on 08/01/2003 10:09:06 PM PDT by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
Either I didn't write clearly or you didn't read it clearly.

You wrote clearly and I read you loud and clear.

You wrote:

"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."

Pres Bush has never faced the horrible economic conditions that Reagan faced. The country was in a deep recession in 1981 because of the lousy leadership of PresCarter and the Cold War was still raging world wide and a threat to world peace.

I support PresBush in his efforts fighting international terrorism and believe his tax cuts have been a positive move. But devaluing the Presidency of Ronald Reagan should not be the goal of conservatives and Republican's, and PresBush would be the first to agree with that. After all, Reagan's achievements and accomplishments are part of the historical record and PresBush has tried to emulate Reagan's Presidency in many ways.

220 posted on 08/01/2003 10:25:49 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 361-367 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