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 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-367 next last
To: Recovering_Democrat
You wise and astute political observers have brought us nothing but bigger government. Time for a change.
321 posted on 08/02/2003 2:27:44 PM PDT by Stew Padasso (pro-rock.com - bsnn.net - libertyteeth.com - BFD - Puff Puff Ping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, Stew.
rd
322 posted on 08/02/2003 5:16:11 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 321 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Actually it is not that simple anymore. You can have your opinion as long as it does not cost me money. So either pay for it yourself or get ready for the backlash.
323 posted on 08/02/2003 5:18:49 PM PDT by Stew Padasso (pro-rock.com - bsnn.net - libertyteeth.com - BFD - Puff Puff Ping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
"I do not appreciate my hard earned money going to this wasteful, arrogant and thoroughly corrupt system."

Buy a one way ticket to a better place.

"Listen to Louise."

Make sure to get parental consent before leaving.

324 posted on 08/02/2003 5:52:17 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Yo soy la Cuba libre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Hell no. I am staying right here in this great country to do my part to save it from the people who are warping it. Its the political leadership that is going to want to leave and you'll be carrying their bags.
325 posted on 08/02/2003 6:10:35 PM PDT by Stew Padasso (pro-rock.com - bsnn.net - libertyteeth.com - BFD - Puff Puff Ping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
"It's a money war, and the ChiCom are entering that war soon, if they haven't already, at a different level."

If that is the case then why is the Bush admin granting special trade realtionships with the Chinese?

Bush Hails China's Entry Into WTO (11/11/01)

U.S. President George W. Bush welcomed China's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) on November 11, saying the move will lead to global economic growth.

The U.S. president also welcomed the accession of Taiwan, a Chinese province, to the WTO.

"The United States stands ready to work constructively with both economies to assist them in meeting the challenges of implementation," Bush said in a statement in New York.

"We also look forward to the great benefits we know that greater trade will bring to all our peoples," he said in the statement. (Xinhua)

http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/20714.html

326 posted on 08/02/2003 6:18:17 PM PDT by Stew Padasso (pro-rock.com - bsnn.net - libertyteeth.com - BFD - Puff Puff Ping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
"To see a problem with the spendiong I would have to first believe that our money is worth something beyond the paper that it's printed on."

I guess we'll be hearing from our leaders any day now as to why our money is worthless.
327 posted on 08/02/2003 6:21:53 PM PDT by Stew Padasso (pro-rock.com - bsnn.net - libertyteeth.com - BFD - Puff Puff Ping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
I don't see it that way. Good luck with your fear and negativity and threats of backlash campaign. I have a different vision: I see the shining city on the hill.
328 posted on 08/02/2003 7:17:11 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 323 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
"I see the shining city on the hill."

With a thousand points of lights. Yea, we've seen them. And we've born witness to all the dim wit bulbs as well. And then there's the whole string that refuses to light because one bulb is blown. Then try to find which one it is on the string. Forget it, get a new string.
329 posted on 08/02/2003 9:00:57 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (stand for freedom or get the helloutta the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
No one expects the entire program of limited-government Constitutionalist conservatism to be implemented overnight. You would expect, however, that a "conservative" administration, "compassionate" or otherwise, from a "conservatie" party would move the ball in our direction somewhat..Begin to restore constitutional government. Get as much as we can and then come back and fight for more, as the liberals do.

Not thi sparty and not this Administration. They have raised social and other discretionary (i.e. non-defense) spending more than Dimmycraps. They are every bit as much a socialist, Big Government party now as the Dems are.

As conservatives, what have they done to deserve our support? Why should we continue to support a party that just increases the size, scope, cost, and intrusiveness of government?
330 posted on 08/02/2003 9:03:22 PM PDT by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Yep, sure.
331 posted on 08/02/2003 9:10:45 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: TBP
"Why should we continue to support a party that just increases the size, scope, cost, and intrusiveness of government?"

Oh please, everyone knows it marches us to the chambers at a much slower pace...giving us time to think. Not that we'll make wise use of our time.
332 posted on 08/02/2003 9:11:51 PM PDT by takenoprisoner (stand for freedom or get the helloutta the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Geesh, you are impossible. Too bad you don't have any of Reagan's charm. I did not intend to call his accomplishments irrelevant and I so corrected myself earlier. My intention was to say that the entire landscape was far different, and I stand by that regardless of how you condescending you wish to become.

For your information, while I was young during the Reagan years, I am not misinformed or blind as a bat. I happen to know several people who worked in the Reagan administration, two of whom have been involved in the Bush administration. They often compare Bush to Reagan, in the most favorable of terms. They would also tell you how different times are now from the political hostility in Washington, to the margin of victory Reagan had in his first term as compared to Bush, to the global realities.
333 posted on 08/02/2003 9:24:53 PM PDT by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
We went off the gold standard in 1933, off the silver standard in 1964. What do we base our money on Einstein?

Ever stop for one moment to wonder what a "Federal Reserve Note" is exactly?

People like you need their "leaders" to tell you what's going on, people like myself just look around and figure things out.

334 posted on 08/02/2003 9:56:37 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Yo soy la Cuba libre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
Geesh, you are impossible.

You've shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you know jack s**t about the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. I went out of my way to offer you a little historical perspective and believe I touched all the major points. So don't try and cover your political shortcomings by coming after me with your lame excuses on the subject matter.

This happens to be an anonymous website. Anyone can brag about knowing somebody, somewhere. LOL In other words, your rhetoric doesn't impress me.

Perhaps someday you'll come to appreciate the accomplishments and achievements of the Reagan Presidency, and just how much it has influenced the decision making of the current occupant of the Oval Office and the dircetion of this nation. But I won't count on it.

335 posted on 08/02/2003 9:57:10 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Stew Padasso
"If that is the case then why is the Bush admin granting special trade realtionships with the Chinese?"

Well, for one thing because the administration does not base foreign policy on even MY best foil scenarios, and secondly, do you think Bush negotiated this between the time he took office and November of 2001?

I have asked you several times to name the person that you support for president on the coming elections, you refuse to do so.

That's because you don't have one.

You see, for all your talk about making this a better country (by YOUR standard of course), you have nothing to offer to make any of that happen.

You are, like most of the rest in here, a sideline bitcher.

We are done.

336 posted on 08/02/2003 10:03:00 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Yo soy la Cuba libre.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Actually I'm a very cheery person, optimistic, successful and good natured.

What sets me off is hypocrisy, corruption and waste. And if you cannot see this happening in our government then you are(at this time) a lost cause and part of the problem.

I respect the fact that you admit you approve of the way government is operating. At the same time, I wish to encourage you (and anyone else who feels the urge) to pony up your entire salary and assets in leiu of my tax bill.
337 posted on 08/02/2003 10:04:03 PM PDT by Stew Padasso (pro-rock.com - bsnn.net - libertyteeth.com - BFD - Puff Puff Ping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
What is Bush's understanding of the dollar?


338 posted on 08/02/2003 10:13:26 PM PDT by Stew Padasso (pro-rock.com - bsnn.net - libertyteeth.com - BFD - Puff Puff Ping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Again, any candidate who can convince me that they are for small government.
339 posted on 08/02/2003 10:14:23 PM PDT by Stew Padasso (pro-rock.com - bsnn.net - libertyteeth.com - BFD - Puff Puff Ping)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
But, at least I know what a metaphor is--and what one is not.
340 posted on 08/02/2003 10:14:47 PM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-367 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