No wonder they don't want you guys owning anything up there, you're too stupid to be trusted with anything of value. Thank you for saving our economy though.
People like me....
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.
Yeah, I voted for his old man while holding my nose (I never forgave him for his "voodoo economics" criticism of Ronnie. Bush senior could be a smirking smart ass just like Jr. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree
I even voted for that doofus Dole. Folks like you, every four years, warned me about "wasting" my vote.
Hell, with the exception of Reagan, I've been wasting my vote for FORTY years.
The first step to getting yourself out of a hole is stop diggin!
From the department of education web site:
"President Bush's budget request for 2004 provides $53.1 billion for the U.S. Department of Education, an increase of $2.8 billion or
5.6 percent
above his 2003 spending plan..."(emphasis added by R_D)
Now, that being said, I understand the desperate straits our government might be put in by increasing accountability and spending on Education...after all, $53 billion in a what, $10 TRILLION economy is one big chunk! <\sarcasm>
But let me offer this thought, despite that wreckless and wild, out of control spending being approved by the President: in D.C. there's that wacky thing called "politics" that is the lifeblood of every professional person in that town.
One must engage in this dirty business called "politics" to get things done...and if one is a comparative conservative, one will not get any help from three of the most influential classes in that town: the "punditry", the "handout crowd" and the Socialists--sometimes called "Democrats". The President has so far successfully kept these foaming-at-the-mouth wolves at bay by playing this sordid game of "politics" very, very well.
The President is dealing with hand he was dealt the best way he knows how--I know CATO has a job to do, too, and I'm glad they're there to remind us all what would be great to have in an ideal world. CATO and other think tanks serve important philosophical roles. I hope we remember that practical matters also have a function in advancing the cause...even if it seems as if we're going about it in a roundabout way.
What helped me was reading Myron Magnet's "The Dream and the Nightmare"...a fine book, and one supposedly that influenced the President's (then the Governor of Texas) thinking on the role of government. I believe he required his entire staff to read Magnet's analysis of 1960s government expansion...I suggest those who haven't read it, take an few days and soak it in. It'll give you at least some insight into what the President believes--remembering, though, that possibly some of his perspective about domestic programs has changed since the all-encompassing focus 9/11 put on his Presidency's mission.
I think we're damn lucky--no, blessed to have this man in office right now. He's truly the right man at the right time.
Ah. One person gets it. The party left me, I didn't leave the party!
You guys don't mind losing ground ... just elections.
Somehow that makes you feel like winners.
I say waste, because that is what it is. There were two reasons that many Conservatives greeted the Reagan triumph as a chance to get the Federal Government out of Health, Education & Welfare. The first was the more obvious, that such Federal involovement is simply not sanctioned by the Constituttion. The second, sometimes overlooked, is that these programs have consistently been counter-productive from the standpoint of social values, positive progress, and economic reality.
I have been pursuing a policy of selective criticism, hoping somehow to help those who are trying to wake the Republican Administration up. I realize that that is not very satisfactory to those who want to put the whole picture on the table at a given moment. It is an attempt to marry the pragmatic to the idealistic. But I am well aware, that ultimately, the most pragmatic course is the one which does not shirk one's duty to oppose that which is wrong. As our beloved first American, George Washington put it, "honesty is always the best policy."
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Look, I didn't say you devalued Bush, it was a general statement to provide context for the remarks you took issue with. And how saying that the combination of a recession, attack on the United States and stock market crisis is different than the economic factors Reagan dealt with is hardly screwing up the facts.
The single most powerful tool that the President of the United States has is what Teddy Roosevelt, I believe it was, described as the "Bully Pulpit"--the ability to use the office to promote his values to the American people. What you suggest is to totally ignore that tool, and by ignoring that tool forfeit any realistic chance for just the scenario that you suggest. This approach is absolutely 180o wrong--absolutely suicidal. If this is what they are really thinking, it absolutely confirms my suggestion that Karl Rove suffers from a perceptual/conceptual deficit, and does not really understand any part of the strength of the Conservative argument.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
No wonder they don't want you guys owning anything up there, you're too stupid to be trusted with anything of value. Thank you for saving our economy though.
People like me....
You called the decisions made by PresReagan, irrelevent. The opposite is true. They were highly relevent. Pick up an honest history book and get educated.
The current set of economic circumstances that PresBush faces --- a mild recession & economic slowdown, exacerbated by 9-11 and a cooling of a hyper inflated stock market --- is still nothing compared to what PresReagan faced in economic terms, when he entered office. I gave you the hard facts and yet you're still as blind as a bat. In 1981, the US economy was headed into a deep hole and eventual collapse was just around the corner. Reagan's leadership was instrumental in the economic recovery that immediately followed and which led to the 20 years of good times the American people enjoyed.
In 1981, the Cold War was still a serious problem to the national security of the US and the entire world. The evil empire of the Soviet Union was America's deadly enemy. Over a 36 year period, the US encountered the USSR on the Cold War battlefields around the globe, from Korea, to VietNam, to Afghanistan. There were literally thousands of Soviet nuclear missiles pointed at American cities. For the first time we had a President who didn't use appeasement or detente as the main avenue to bring peace between the US and the USSR. With the determination of the ultimate "cold warrior", PresReagan rebuilt the US military and stood face to face with the Soviet communists. Reagan submitted the final death blow to Soviet communism and the US won the Cold War.
The 9-11 attacks on the US, have been met with the power and force of the US military. PresBush has done a fine job leading as CIC and deserves credit for protecting and defending the homeland. Bush`s tax cuts, military buildup and missile defense came right out of Reagan's playbook. And the events of Reagan's and Bush`s first three years in office, are similiar in nature and highly comparable.
However, there are a few areas where Bush doesn't follow Reagan's political agenda. Bush has been unwilling to hold the line on discretionary spending, as Reagan did. Total federal spending under PresBush`s first three years has increased by 14 percent as opposed to 7 percent under PresReagan. This includes adjustments for inflation. And while Reagan reduced non-defense discretionary spending by 14 percent, Bush will have overseen a rise of 18 percent in discretionary spending. That's a huge 32 percent difference between the two men. Those are the facts.
Reagan also used his veto pen on numerous occasions. Bush hasn't employed his veto power once since taking office. I expect things to change in a second Bush term, but for now we'll have to live with Bush`s weak effort at controlling waste, fraud and abuse in the federal bureaucracy.
And for your information, just as with PresBush, PresReagan was called a cowboy and a dummy by the liberal establishment throughout his Presidency. Democrat's continually underestimated PresReagan and said he would start WWIII. They were wrong then and they're wrong today.
I stated no beliefs, I showed you reality.
You are showing that your wallet is far more important than your nation.
THAT'S truly offensive.
So far, you have yet to state what candidate you support for the presidency...whether you fullfill your civic duties as an American citizen or not, we will elect a president in a little over a year, you should at least show some courage and name your candidate.
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.