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.
Buy a one way ticket to a better place.
"Listen to Louise."
Make sure to get parental consent before leaving.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.