Posted on 01/22/2004 6:44:15 AM PST by tdadams
Conservatives across the nation are raising concerns about the huge increases in spending coming out of Washington. The impact this will have on our economy, taxpayers, and future generations is of paramount concern. President Bush tackled this issue in his State of the Union Address by saying he would hold the line on discretionary spending growth to 4 percent. He took aim at the deficit, unveiling his intention to cut it in half.
While the goal of curtailing spending is laudable, the proposal falls short of a grand vision predicated on fiscal discipline and conservatism necessary to curb big increases in spending now and into the future.
A Spending Spree
Federal spending's drag on the economy is now over $20,000 per household -- its highest level since World War II -- and growing. Mandatory spending reached 11 percent of GDP for the first time ever. The recent Medicare drug bill represents a huge long-term burden on the fiscal health of this country. It was a massive entitlement expansion passed with no financing program to pay for it and is estimated by CBO to cost well over $2 trillion dollars over a 20-year period. The final check for this program will come due just when Social Security and Medicare run out of money.
Spending has increased twice as fast under President Bush as it did under President Clinton. From 2001 to 2003 total spending grew by 16 percent. Certainly the terror attacks of 9/11 placed additional demands on spending for homeland security, a strong defense, and rebuilding New York. However, this accounts for less than half of the new spending that has occurred since 9/11. What was so sorely lacking during this time was self-discipline required to balance fiscal priorities.
Presidents Roosevelt and Truman signed budgets during World War II and the Korean War which actually decreased non-defense spending. However, we saw no such balancing of our fiscal checkbook after 9/11. Instead we saw a spending spree in Washington where budgets written by Congress and signed by the President during the War on Terror actually grew non-defense spending by 11 percent during this period.
Compared to the President's record of a discretionary spending increase of 27 percent over the past two years, holding discretionary spending to 4 percent growth might seem like quite an accomplishment to some. However it is hardly a prescription for long term fiscal health when taken in the overall context of growth in the budget, its burden on taxpayers, businesses, and families, and the burgeoning deficits looming in the future in Medicare, Social Security, and other programs like the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation.
The President has laid out visions for other priorities such as education and a mission to Mars. Education spending has increased by 65 percent over the past two years, and still the President's proposals will likely contain additional spending. This comes at a time when cash is piling up in Washington because states cannot spend it quickly enough.
Cost estimates for the President's space initiatives range from $500 billion to $1 trillion. But the fact is we just do not know how much it will cost for a mission to Mars, complete with a pit stop on the moon. The President has a vision of new technology to explore this new frontier and would be engaging the country on a long-range project. Past experience tells us that such grand undertakings are plagued with cost overruns, delays, and technical difficulties. The start up costs identified by the President are just a minimum down payment on the ultimate costs of this initiative, and he has presented no long-range plan to finance such costs. The full costs will most likely come into play just as the bitter fiscal reality of the Social Security and Medicare problems confront the nation.
Rein It In
Instead of setting such painless goals as keeping growth in discretionary spending modest or cutting the deficit in half, the President should take a firm grip on the reins of the federal checkbook and the taxpayers' wallet by firmly opposing any new entitlement and vetoing any bill that contains corporate welfare. He should take a strong lead and force Congress to change the dynamics that lead to wasteful spending and pork barrel projects by rewarding members who want to save money, not hand it out by the fistful. These are the bold actions that are necessary to pass on a strong economy and sound fiscal foundation for the next generation.
He's shown courage and leadership in the War On Terror---it's high time he brought those qualities to the War On Spending.
BTTT
What's up? Is it semantics? Is someone including military spending in their calculations? Is the White House spinning? I don't think Card would spread false info that could easily be challenged.
This comes at a time when cash is piling up in Washington because states cannot spend it quickly enough.
The bold sentence and the title make no sense in the same article.
There was an earlier thread with this same contents, but it got pulled before I go my reply posted. The poster had signed up yesterday, so I feel it was troll bait.
"Non-defence discretionary outlays will rise 3.2% in FY2004 following increases of 7.9% in FY2003 and 12.3% in FY2002. [...] With Bush's budget plan for FY2004, real non-defence discretionary outlays will rise 18.0% in his first three years in office (FY2002-FY2004). That growth far exceeds the first three years of any recent presidential term, including Ronald Reagan's first term (-13.5%), Reagan's second term (-3.2%), George H. Bush's term (11.6%), Bill Clinton's first term (-0.7%), and Clinton's second term (8.2%). When Reagan came to office and pursued a large defence build-up, he essentially froze non-defence discretionary outlays, which were US$150-billion in FY1981 and just US$151-billion three years later in FY1984 (in current dollars)." - http://www.cato.org/research/articles/edwards-030206.html
Yep---Karl Rove tells him conservatives have no place else to go.
"Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Homeland security has seen a 3.91 percent growth rate, compared to .10 percent from 1998-2000." http://govtsecurity.securitysolutions.com/ar/security_homeland_security_spending/
The growth rate for total non-defence discretionary outlays is more than that, so non-defence non-HS discretionary outlays must be increasing.
Expanded Government Spending
* more government = less private sector *
from Grandfather Economic Report series
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/summary.htm
#1 Core Problem: INCREASED GOVERNMENT-DOMINANCE OF OUR ECONOMY
from Grandfather Economic Report series
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/summary.htm
Problem is, he obviously sees no problem with spending. Face it - Bush is a socialist at heart. His "compassion" is fueled by your paycheck. Holding it to a 4% growth is a joke.
I'm sorry to say you're probably right.
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.