Conservatives simmer as spending mushrooms under Bush

AP ^

[G. Chapman]

Lets face it, the Bush administration has abandoned anything close to fiscal conservatism. This and his stance on illegal immigration have all but forced my hand to not vote for him in the upcoming election. I'd rather Howard Dean (god forbid) take the White House if anything but to be tempered by a GOP congress that would refuse to pass his massive pork, unlike our current President who seems unwilling or unable to veto a spending bill.

The Rovians seem hell bent on pandering to Dem strongholds (latinos, blacks, and the blue hairs) and have all but abandoned its base when it comes to fiscal responsibility. I like tax cuts, but they are meaningless when you jack up spending to these levels, regardless of the war on terror, which I fully could understand an increase in military spending for, but so much of the last three budgets have just been pork. The GOP under that worthless spineless turd Frisk has basicaly started writing blank checks to pay off its backers. Sad to say, but fiscaly the country would be better off with a Dem in the White House if but to insure a check on the rampant spending.

For a quick look at spending: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/01/05/national1441EST0604.DTL&type=printable

How federal spending has grown during President Bush's first three years.

Figures are by federal budget years, which begin Oct. 1 of the previous calendar year. The first budget year Bush fully controlled was 2002, which began Oct. 1, 2001.

Data is from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, and the White House Office of Management and Budget.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Overall spending: 2001 (President Clinton's final budget year) $1.864 trillion; 2002 $2.011 trillion; 2003 $2.157 trillion; 2004 (estimate) $2.305 trillion. * Overall Bush spending increase, 2002 through 2004: $441 billion, or 23.7 percent.

* Last three-year period when overall spending growth was that fast: 1989 through 1991, 24.3 percent.

* Overall Clinton spending increase, 1994 through 2001: $454 billion, or 32.2 percent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary spending, the one-third of the budget that must be approved annually by the president and Congress.

Numbers are in budget authority, or new spending Congress and the president enact. Some of the money is for long-range projects like defense contracts and is spent over several years.

Numbers include midyear emergency bills enacted to finance wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other costs, including $20 billion for 2001 provided under Bush. They also assume enactment of a measure combining seven 2004 spending bills into one, awaiting Senate approval.

* Overall discretionary spending: 2001 $664 billion; 2002 $735 billion; 2003 $846 billion; 2004 $873 billion.

* Overall discretionary spending increase under Bush, 2002 through 2004: $209 billion, or 10.5 percent annually.

* Overall discretionary spending increase under Clinton, 1994 through 2001: $141 billion, or 3.4 percent annually.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Bush administration breakdown of discretionary spending. This uses a category the White House calls defense and homeland security, which includes the Pentagon, the Homeland Security Department, and other programs it considers homeland security. Numbers are in budget authority.

Defense/homeland security spending: 2001 $333 billion (includes $20 billion enacted under Bush in emergency bill after Sept. 11, 2001); 2002 $384 billion; 2003 $477 billion; 2004 $492 billion.

All other discretionary spending: 2001 $331 billion; 2002 $351 billion; 2003 $369 billion; 2004 $381 billion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Spending for large benefit programs. Figures for 2004 are CBO estimates: Social Security: 2001 $429 billion; 2002 $448 billion; 2003 $467 billion, 2004 $491 billion.

Medicare: 2001 $238 billion; 2002 $256 billion; 2003 $277 billion; 2004 $288 billion.

Medicaid: 2001 $130 billion; 2002 $148 billion; 2003 $161 billion; 2004 $175 billion.

Now is this the legacy we want to pass on? One of utter fiscal irresponsibility. We all know once the govt gets its hands on money it never gives it back. Budgets never shrink, they grow. Perhaps the Bush clan has finaly figured this out with their little pander to spending responsibility in the coming budget (unlikley).

[Support Free Republic]

Free Republic!

It's a wonderful site!

Please help keep it that way. Make a donation!

[farmfriend]

Short list.

[Sir Gawain]

-

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[mallardx]

Yeah, throw up your hands and vote for some Democrat. What a hapless whiner you are. Maybe you should move to France, you can have some WHINE with that cheese...

[sinkspur]

Your posts average one a month, for the past year, and you come on, now, trashing Bush?

Things boring over at DU?

[billbears]

Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said the Medicare bill could cost from $1.7 trillion to $2 trillion during its second 10 years, as the huge baby boom generation retires and foists added costs on taxpayers.

"The U.S. budget is out of control," the investment bank Goldman, Sachs & Co. wrote its clients, projecting large deficits for the next decade. "Any thoughts of relief thereafter are a pipe dream until political priorities adjust."

You mean getting more Republicans in office won't do it? ;) At what point will those willing to forgive anyone with a R by their name for absolutely everything realize and ACCEPT that they have been used by partisans just to gain power? BTW, political priorities 'readjusting' does not include continuing President Bush's spendathon

[JohnGalt]

Who said anything about voting for Democrats?

The poster is merely exploring some new strategies for the Right since the GOP has produced zero results and on many levels worsened the situtation.

[Sir Gawain]

Your posts average one a month, for the past year, and you come on, now, trashing Bush? Things boring over at DU

Looks like he posted facts. You replied by totally ignoring the facts in the article.

[KantianBurke]

"At what point will those willing to forgive anyone with a R by their name for absolutely everything realize and ACCEPT that they have been used by partisans just to gain power?"

Perhaps aftert having afternoon tea with the NOW nags who mortgaged their integrity to keep a cheating husband/ rapist in the White House?

[Lance Romance]

I would give him a Whine-iken to go with his Wah-mburger and French Cries.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Conservatives simmer as spending mushrooms under Bush

The stringer at AP who wrote this headline must have been awfully hungry at the time.

[Williams]

I think you should talk to Governor Mclintock. No, I don't "forgive" everything an "R" does. But I know the difference between President Bush and the disaster a left wing democrat would bring to this country. A left wing democrat who would raise spending AND taxes to the max, while junking our national security. Just like I know the difference between Arnold and Davis.

Go ahead, take the liberal media's bait. They HATE fiscal restraint. They are ONLY interested in telling conservatives to hate Bush, so a left wing BIG spender can get in.

By the way, it was so called Reagan conservatives who helped defeat the elder Bush as well by staying home, giving us an eight year national disaster.

[billbears]

Forgive me but that's how I see the R apologists for the administration currently. Willing to overlook anything and everything because 'we' are in charge. No different than 'yellow dog' Democrats

[sinkspur]

Looks like he posted facts. You replied by totally ignoring the facts in the article.

He's a disrupter. And, I'm beginning to think you are too.

[G. Chapman]

perhaps you could pull the blinders from your eyes and realize that this administration is far worse then any democrat one when it comes to pork spending and boosting spending on utter crap programs. I could bash on Bush for lots of things, his utter abandonment of anything remotely resembling a conservative agenda, his massive pandering to the elderly with yet another massive entitlement program, sucking up to Mexico by doing nothing to stop the massive influx of illegals into the country, and in fact doing the worst possible thing, giving them amnesty. Maybe his nice weak dollar policy will hurt the EU, but it hurts the US as well. I could go on and on. Theres little about this administration that rings true with real conservatives.

Of course, an ad-hom is what many here are best at, it shows how small minded and lame their arguments really are. Conservatives are supposed to make arguments based on facts, not emotion, sadly for a conservative message board, many here have thrown their lot in with the same emotional sniping that the DU crowd is known for.

Attacking me does nothing to disprove my argument, that Bush is not a fiscal conservative, and hes spending is unchecked and out of touch with whats best for the nation.

[Lance Romance]

Apparently, you think 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq were Free of Charge.

[dead]

They are ONLY interested in telling conservatives to hate Bush, so a left wing BIG spender can get in.

I don’t think it is possible for somebody to be a bigger spender than Bush.

Maybe Mario Cuomo, but he’s not running.

[sinkspur]

Sad to say, but fiscaly the country would be better off with a Dem in the White House if but to insure a check on the rampant spending.

Is this one of your "facts"? LOL!!!!!