Conservatives simmer as spending mushrooms under Bush

Conservatives simmer as spending mushrooms under Bush WASHINGTON (AP) — Conservatives wait warily as President Bush makes final decisions about his election-year budget, three years into an administration on whose watch spending has mushroomed by 23.7%, the fastest pace in a decade.

While Bush has emphasized repeatedly the need to rein in spending, overall federal expenditures have grown to an estimated $2.31 trillion for the budget year that started Oct. 1. That is up from $1.86 trillion in President Clinton's final year, a rate of growth not seen for any three-year period since 1989 to 1991.

Much of the increase stems from the fight against terrorism and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also expanding relentlessly have been huge programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which grow automatically with inflation, higher medical costs and more beneficiaries.

What has vexed conservatives most is the 31.5% growth since Bush took office in discretionary spending. That is the one-third of the budget lawmakers approve annually for defense, domestic security, school aid and everything else except Social Security and other benefits.

Further infuriating conservatives, Bush and the Republican-run Congress have enacted a $400 billion, 10-year enlargement of Medicare; $87 billion in expanded benefits for farmers; and $40 billion for increased veterans' payments and the Air Force's leasing and buying of refueling tankers.

"Re-election has become the focus of Republicans in the White House and Congress. And those in power have determined the road to staying in power is paved with government spending," said Brian Riedl, who monitors the budget for the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Mounting spending has combined with the recession and two major tax cuts to turn a four-year string of annual surpluses into deficits that last year hit $374 billion, the worst ever in dollar terms. Administration officials and private forecasters say red ink could hit $500 billion this year, with more to follow.

Things look bleak in the long run, too. 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."

In the new budget Bush is to send Congress on Feb. 2, Bush is expected to propose limiting the growth of discretionary programs to 4%, perhaps excluding defense and domestic security. Last February, Bush proposed holding discretionary spending increases to 4% this year and next, although aides now say he meant to exclude the military and anti-terror activities.

Discretionary expenditures will hit an estimated $873 billion this year, assuming the Senate completes a House-passed measure in January combining the year's seven remaining spending bills. That is $27 billion, or 3.2%, more than last year.

"President Bush has been resolute in pursuing his priorities of winning the war on terrorism, protecting the homeland and strengthening our economy. In pursuing those, he's also exercised fiscal restraint," said Joel Kaplan, deputy director of the White House budget office.

Critics say with nine months left in the government's budget year, there's plenty of time for more spending increases, such as for war costs. And they note this year's discretionary spending increase, though low, adds to boosts of 11% and then 15% in Bush's first two years as president.

"It's an administration that in principle is committed to controlling spending but is unwilling to make hard choices," said Maya MacGuineas, executive director of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan anti-deficit group.

The administration says most discretionary spending increases have been for defense and programs it considers anti-terror — the Homeland Security Department and other domestic security efforts.

Of the $209 billion three-year discretionary increase under Bush, which includes $20 billion Bush added for homeland security for 2001 right after the Sept. 11 attacks, the administration says $159 billion has been for defense and domestic security.

During that same period, spending for all remaining discretionary programs has grown from $331 billion to $381 billion. That's 15%, or 5% a year.

"There clearly is a need for the Republican majority to sharpen its pencils and return to its foundation of discipline" in spending, said conservative Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

"There is room for more restraint, especially as the economy recovers, but this is hardly the record of a domestic-program spending spree," White House budget chief Joshua Bolten wrote last month in The Wall Street Journal.

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).

Free Republic!

It's a wonderful site!
Please help keep it that way. Make a donation!

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.

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.