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.
"Again, any candidate who can convince me that they are for small government."
So, you will cast your vote for any politico that will make you a promise that he knows he will never have to fulfill. He will make you that promise hoping that if enough people like yourself vote for him, he will be able to get millions of dollars from the Federal government to run his campaign.
The reason that you refuse to name a name is that your candidate does not exist.
No evidence of that. Admitting there's a problem is the first step.
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 never said that, did I? Blaming others is another common tactic when avoiding an issue.
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.
Heh. That's silly, but I can play the game, too, Stew. I encourage you (and anyone else who feels the same way you do) to REALLY show us the strength and deepness of your so-called convictions by withholding your entire salary and assets subject to taxes until the government's spending habits comport with your notion of appropriateness.
Good luck with that. Now. I'll stop responding to you, as this is quickly going nowhere: you seem to have a strong mistaken notion that we're headed into a financial quagmire--and I don't. Time will tell who is right.
If it'll make you feel better though, send off one more seemingly witty, sure-fire response that'll convince me of your position. I won't respond, and you can believe your retort really GOT ME GOOD.
rd
Whether a given political tradeoff is worth it is always debatable. But do you really deny that triangulation works? When one party takes away the issues of the other it makes it hard to whip up an electoral frenzy for the other side.
I thought my key phrase was the coming wave of Republican dominance.If that is really a possibility, I don't want W/Rove to jeopardize its coming to fruition.
Well for one, they should have announced their candidacy by now.
"Who was it that decided that Dole was a viable candidate to beat Clinton?"
Dole could have beat Clinton, had it not been for Perot, Clinton won with a plurality, not a majority.
Now, since you apparently will not be voting for Bush, who is your candidate?
I shoulda NEVER advocated voting for him in 2000! My apologies for THAT action!
The reason that you refuse to name a name is that your candidate does not exist.
I'll name one for you: Howard Phillips. A committed constitutionalist, small-government conservative who has never taken a cent of government money for his campaigns.
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.