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 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 361-367 next last
To: Tarl
The idea that the President is just speaking out about Terrorism is just plain silly. He is speaking out, all the time, about a great many other issues--some current and some historic. The fact that when he does speak on issues, his words are less and less often promoting the Conservative view on those issues, but confirms the points that some of us have made here.

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

301 posted on 08/02/2003 10:38:49 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
You guys don't mind losing ground ... just elections.

Somehow that makes you feel like winners.

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.

302 posted on 08/02/2003 10:41:02 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: habs4ever
Cutting gov't to pre-Coolidge like levels isn't on the national radar, so promoting a candidate with rollback in mind isn't going to get you far, except a few pats on the back from DC based think tanks and their supporters.

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.

303 posted on 08/02/2003 10:42:00 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
Who is looking for an ideal world?

Common sense, government restraint and responsibility is not too much to ask. Personally, I have given up on the RP making the argument for small government. And to be honest I think they are trying to build the "ideal world" through government and my famliy's resources. They need the reality check.

I refer the right honorable gentleman to my previous comments regarding the reality of politics in the modern world. :)

304 posted on 08/02/2003 10:43:20 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona
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.

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:

MACOMB - Directly following a proposal to increase fiscal year 2004 funding to the levels requested by the Bush administration comes the president's proposal for revamping inter-city rail service - let the states do it.

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

305 posted on 08/02/2003 10:51:59 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
just speaking out about terrorism?? Somewhere there is a disconnect there. I was only implying the President is focusing his efforts/concentration on standing up to terrorism and that, yes, it risks drawing his attention away from domestic policies. There needs to be some support/forgiveness from his constituent base so the endless attacks don't divert him from the task he has given himself: confronting terrorism. Terrorism is like a large scale version of a sniper. During war, snipers are invaluable yet despised as cowards since they are incapable of confronting an army yet create an atmosphere of impending fear that immobilizes the actions of an army till the snipers are routed out. Terrorists, like snipers, must be routed out from their safe havens. They are inspired by perceptions of weakness, our President has the necessary resolve but his political attackers undermine the perception of his resolve.
306 posted on 08/02/2003 11:26:54 AM PDT by Tarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: zchip
George W. Bush is probably trying to buy votes from voting blocks that Republicans are rapidly losing...

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?

307 posted on 08/02/2003 11:43:16 AM PDT by KriegerGeist ("The weapons of our warefare are not carnal, but mighty though God for pulling down of strongholds")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tarl
If the President wanted some sort of moratorium on other issues--and while dealing with the Terrorist threat from Internationalist groups who hate America is serious, it is not serious enough to declare a moratorium on all other issues--he would not be pushing the envelope to the Left on Medicare, Education, Aids, etc.. If he insists on pushing a point of view that is antithetical to beliefs that many of us hold sacred, he leaves us no choice but to push back. You are addressing your appeals in the wrong direction.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

308 posted on 08/02/2003 12:18:11 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
The deficit scenario may have an outcome that I'd like to see avoided at all cost. Let's say the economy begins to rebound from the stimulus, yet not as quickly as the administration plans.

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.

309 posted on 08/02/2003 12:20:03 PM PDT by budwiesest (Gladly, the cross-eyed bear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
From just a Conservative viewpoint your concerns are valid. He didn't campaign as a strict party conservative, but as a compassionate conservative. Smaller Gov't means reducing programs that aren't essential, sort of a "tough love" kind of thing but compassionate conservative is one who tries to tow the line but will use discretion spending to fund areas of policy where he feels a compelling concern to spend our tax dollars. He probably feels strongly about the suffering of aids in Africa and since our war on terrorism has alienated the UN, he can't influence others to bear the burden so he has risked political constituency for something he believes in. Isn't that true leadership to risk self interest(his political ratings) for something he believes?
310 posted on 08/02/2003 12:34:57 PM PDT by Tarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
Teddy did end up supporting the drugs bill. Other Dems did not want to give W the legislative win. But even there, Teddy was probably acting out of the honest belief that it was good to get that entitlement enacted and this was its last best chance, given the coming wave of Republican dominance.

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...

311 posted on 08/02/2003 12:43:49 PM PDT by ovrtaxt ( Support real tax reform - HR 25! See http://www.fairtax.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
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!

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.

312 posted on 08/02/2003 12:50:51 PM PDT by ovrtaxt ( Support real tax reform - HR 25! See http://www.fairtax.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Tarl
This monumental task of confronting terrorism is a 24/7 concentration

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.

313 posted on 08/02/2003 1:01:21 PM PDT by paulk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
the libertarians, while I agree with them fiscally, have no prayer of winning.

It's not about winning!

It's about shaking the daylights out of the Republican Party and bringing an end to tweedledee/tweedledum politics.

314 posted on 08/02/2003 1:10:46 PM PDT by iconoclast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
You've got 2 choices in this country: Democrat or Republican.

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.

315 posted on 08/02/2003 1:16:19 PM PDT by iconoclast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: iconoclast
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.

316 posted on 08/02/2003 1:25:23 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
And what happens in the meantime? A Socialist or Fascist power freak comes along because of the split.

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.

317 posted on 08/02/2003 1:35:15 PM PDT by iconoclast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
And, I take solace in the fact that Democrats hate Bush.

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.

318 posted on 08/02/2003 1:44:47 PM PDT by iconoclast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Tarl
President is focusing his efforts/concentration on standing up to terrorism and that, yes, it risks drawing his attention away from domestic policies.

Well, maybe, or maybe it draws the voters' attention away from his failing, non-existent, or incoherent domestic policies.

319 posted on 08/02/2003 1:49:48 PM PDT by iconoclast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Listen. I do not appreciate my hard earned money going to this wasteful, arrogant and thoroughly corrupt system. Like I said, you will hide behind the governments skirt when push comes to shove.

Your belief set is big government and it fully represents the RP as it stands today. Handing over my money to that is only legitimizing and enabling your belief set and that is not wise.

Listen to Louise. It is now patriotic to hand over your money to globalist socialists. No thanks, that is not patriotic, it is just plain stupid.
320 posted on 08/02/2003 2:26:43 PM PDT by Stew Padasso (pro-rock.com - bsnn.net - libertyteeth.com - BFD - Puff Puff Ping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 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