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.
It is all very sad, to be sure. Hopefully, discussions such as this will wake someone up inside the Beltway. Otherwise, the immediate future is less than merely grim.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Reality bites, eh? :) Look, and I say this respectfully: You've got 2 choices in this country: Democrat or Republican. There is a huge difference between these choices, regardless of whether or not the idealogues want to acknowledge the same. Being a recovering Democrat, I gladly support the Republicans with my time, money, and votes. Such will it be for a long, long time to come.
I'm all for the pragmatic incremental approach, but consider that we're now three years into a Republican administration that has the Senate and House behind it, and We've still got Amtrak! Amtrak!
They're not even trying.
I refer the right honorable gentleman to my previous comments regarding the reality of politics in the modern world. :)
Whoa whoa whoa. When/how did the President--as a candidate--say he would cut AMTRAK? How big a priority should eliminating AMTRAK be on the President's "to do" list? But, lest we think the President loves the status quo on the boondoggle that is AMTRAK, let us look at the Bush plan to MOVE AMTRAK to a "privatized", for-profit plan:
Transportation secretary Norman Mineta submitted to the Congress a three-step plan to create private passenger rail companies that would operate trains under contract to states and multi-state compacts much in the same way Amtrak currently operates trains under contract to commuter rail agencies.
The Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act of 2003 would also create a private rail "hardware" company to maintain and operate the infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor contractually for a multi-state Northeast Corridor Compact.
source URL: http://www.macombjournal.com/articles/2003/08/01/news/news6.txt
Voters by race and sex:
I. Whites:
A.White men: = 50 percent will vote Democratic?
B. White women:
1. Single women(college?) = 99 percent will vote Democrat?
2. Single never married women w/children = 80 -90 percent will vote Democrat?
(need "Big Government to be their husband?) I say a high percent.
3. Divorced women w/children (single parent) = 80 -90 percent will vote Democrat?
(also need "Big Government to be their husband?)
4. White married women w/children: = 50 percent will vote Democrat?
II. Blacks:
A. Black men: = 99 percent will vote Democrat
B. Black women: = 99 percent will vote Democrat
III. Hispanics:
A. Hispanic men: = 99 percent will vote Democrat
B. Hispanic women: = 99 will vote Democrat
IV. Asians:
A. Asian men = 80 - 90 percent will vote Democrat? Anybody's guess?
B. Asian women = 80 -90 percent will vote Democrat? Anybody's guess?
V. Elderly members of AARP on Social Security & Medicare of all colors = 80 percent will vote Democrat?
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Along comes a Dem with the "I'ts the economy, stupid" signs and here we go again: another democrat riding the wave of economic and global reforms provided by a republican administration for four or eight years.
That an economy with interest rates as low as they've been lately needs any stimulus in the form of deficit spending says a lot. With all the time and effort that will go into making fixes to this 'house' of ours, it will only be in vain should a democrat move in next year. There goes the neighborhood.
The answer may be to deprive them of a 'new' home. Get back to the basic function of government and get off people's backs and out of their pockets. Allow the markets to respond to people's needs. Give the voters something with which to contrast the democrat method of solving problems which is throwing other people's money at them.
Your paragraph above perfectly illustrates my point. So W gets a 'legislative win'. Big deal! The result is further growth of the welfare state. I hardly consider it a 'win'. Who is the real 'winner' here, W or Ted? I can tell you who the losers are...
And what happens in the meantime? A Socialist or Fascist power freak comes along because of the split. While I continue to hang by a thread with the Republicans (diet socialism) I will wait for a candidate who truly represents limited government and maximum personal responsibility. But the libertarians, while I agree with them fiscally, have no prayer of winning. The real turn may come with a freer media, if we can last that long without a backbreaking descent into government domination.
BS
There are much bigger risks than some nutty Arabs. Terrorists really are a small problem compared to several other risk factors - including the impoversment of the USA. Socialized Medicine will cause 10s of times as many deaths.
It's not about winning!
It's about shaking the daylights out of the Republican Party and bringing an end to tweedledee/tweedledum politics.
We've got the choices we deserve. When you've supported the Pubbies long enough and watched the country go further into the toilet you may change your mind.
Perhaps. But I think things are getting better...not at the ideal rate, but I dispute the notion we're regressing, despite CATO's attempt to make GW into JC. Coming from the pov that used to believe government owed us all something, I see a real difference between Republicans and Democrats.
And, I take solace in the fact that Democrats hate Bush. Their hatred of him solidifies my support for him more than the attempt to persuade me to reject him.
As an aside, I hear no constructive attempt or real alternative to the President--what is the suggestion, that we vote Libertarian or some other third party? Please.
There is far more reason to fear the example of the frog in slowly increasing hot water than to fear a most unlikely sudden traumatic lurch to the extrme left or right.
Some of them hate him for the same reason that many Republicans hated Clinton ... he's stealing all their issues.
what is the suggestion, that we vote Libertarian or some other third party? Please.
See my previous posts.
Well, maybe, or maybe it draws the voters' attention away from his failing, non-existent, or incoherent domestic policies.
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.