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.
OK by me if you post it every day.
Putting the nails in the coffin of the neo-con philosophy is more important than winning.
Just had to be said again!
I'm no socialist, you however, need to wake up to the realities of today's world.
I don't know if you were too busy counting your money and missed it, but the targets of the attacks attacks on 9/11 were far from being symbolic, or random sites. The attacks brought our economy to its knees, they were designed to do so.
They crippled our airline industry, our financial industry, our hospitality industry. They forced us to spend billions of unbudgeted dollars in an attempt to achieve the impossible...secure a free nation from terrorist attacks.
Meanwhile, the people who perpetrated these attacks are seen as national heroes in underdeveloped counties because they spend money building schools and hospitals for the poor.
It's a money war, and the ChiCom are entering that war soon, if they haven't already, at a different level.
Go ahead and spend your energies trying to get a conservative dog catcher elected in your home town, the rest of us will do the heavy lifting for the nation.
My point is keep your stupid liberal Canadian opinions to yourself. We have enough liberal Republicans in our own country without having to import them from that pathetic trash dump you live in.
Fair enough, it wasn't my intention to devalue Reagan. I just don't think his record can be used to devalue Bush either.
You can add being ignorant about my age group to your long list of of things you're ignorant about. I guess you like being laughed at as many on FR know me personally, unlike a mystery meat Canadian who constantly claims to be some financial hotshot. You're probably some scrub living off Canadian taxpayers.
Any other statements you want to make to show everyone you have no idea WTF you're talking about?
In fact you were the simpleton arguing a while back that deficits don't matter, while you claim to be some kind of financial guru. A guru who can't seem figure out the downside of spending over a quarter trillion per year on interest payments.
I haven't! Blackbird.
And the most effective way to get the message across is to get out and vote for the Constitutionalist or Libertarian candidate, not just set home on our duffs.
The idea here is that if we bitch loud enough maybe GWB will wake up and realize that our votes are not locked in. If our bitching causes him to change course, then I'll be able to vote for him. Someone in the White House has made a bad assumption that conservatives will vote for GWB because he is the lesser of two evils. I won't.
GWB knows that every time he panders to the left he will lose a small number of votes on the right. He thinks the number is very small, and if we keep quiet he'll never know the truth.
I want GWB to know that I always vote, and if I don't vote for him, I WILL vote for the opposition. In this way conservatives can "cancel" the votes of the few liberals GWB may win with his pandering.
If anyone in the White House is reading this, maybe you should re-calculate your numbers with this in mind.
You're starting to piss me off. I've not devalued PresBush at any time. You made some outrageous charges against PresReagan's legacy that weren't true. So don't take a swipe at me because you screwed up with the facts.
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.