Bush Seeks to Soothe Republican Worries on Budget

Reuters ^ | Sat January 31, 2004 | Caren Bohan

[demlosers]

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - President Bush vowed on Saturday to hold the line on spending as he sought to reassure members of his own party who are upset at record budget deficits.

The president told a gathering of congressional Republicans that the task of restraining spending would be a tough one in an election year when politicians are loath to cut popular programs.

"This is going to be a challenging year for making sure we spend the people's money wisely," he said.

But Bush said he wanted to send a "clear signal" to the public and to financial markets that the administration was committed to belt-tightening.

The strategy session of Republicans came just two days before Bush was set to unveil his fiscal 2005 budget. It is expected to project a record $521 billion deficit.

The budget will call for holding spending growth outside of defense and homeland security to 0.5 percent.

But some conservative Republicans worry that safeguarding security-related expenditures from the budget cap will give the White House wide latitude to propose new spending since security issues might be defined broadly within the budget.

New costs such as a White House proposal for manned expeditions to the moon and Mars have set fiscal conservatives on edge.

Further stoking concerns was an acknowledgment this week by the White House that Bush's Medicare prescription drug program would cost tens of billions more than expected.

Bush's budget will show a $530 billion cost over 10 years for the addition of a prescription drug benefit for the Medicare health program for senior citizens. That is 33 percent more than was anticipated when the Medicare overhaul was approved less than two months ago.

Bush seemed to win some goodwill with the members of his party by lingering for an hour in a private session to take questions -- longer than he has in previous years. The president was asked about both Medicare and the budget deficits.

On Medicare, Bush replied he had no regrets about pushing for the prescription drug benefit despite its price tag and said he still thought he could accomplish his goal of cutting the budget deficit in half in five years, according to a U.S. official who was there.

Another participant said that on that matter of the budget deficit, "there's a sense that we need to act."

"Some of the frustration (over the deficit) is directed at the president and some it is directed at ourselves," said the participant, who is a Republican congressional aide.

Despite griping that has been going on behind the scenes about budgetary issues, Republicans girded for the election battle with solidarity chants of "Four more years" after Bush finished his speech.

Bush has come under repeated attacks over the deficit from Democrats trying to unseat him. They blame his tax cuts for the red ink. The president faces a re-election vote in November.

Democrats said on Saturday that Bush, in his efforts to rein in deficits, was targeting programs that help the most vulnerable U.S. citizens.

"Tax cuts that pile on to the largest deficit in our history will not help those folks find jobs," Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina said in the Democratic response to the president's Saturday radio address. "Deficits drag the economy down, increase interest rates, and leave a staggering debt for our children to pay."

Bush in his own radio address earlier urged Congress to bring back now-expired rules that forbid increases in spending unless they are paid for elsewhere within the budget.

[Ol' Sparky]

$521 billion is not a small deficit. And, the worst of the Bush spending hasn't kicked in yet. The expansion of Medicare will cost future generations trillions.

[mrsmith]

"some of this spending, and the refusal to veto any spending bills, is simply bad politics. "

Perhaps some of the politics was a choice whether to risk opposing the AWB renewal during the 2000 election or to pay enough pork to the congress to get them to not renew it.
Anyway that's the an obvious thing that strengthened the congress's hand with the president.

[Huck]

We really didn't have a surplus..that was a projection.

As I understand it, the CBO or someone has actual numbers for 98 and 99 which showed surpluses. We had surpluses up until 01.

[crz]

Go to a flat or sales tax and do away with the present joke of a tax system and the revenues will triple paying off the debt in short order. Russia did it, why is it we cant? Because they want MONEY in DC, thats why.

[Afronaut]

"Have fun aplogizing for big government."

Too funny.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Oh, the old, we must invest in XYZ argument for government spending. I hope you don't actually believe that crap. BTW, are we working on some grand project/infrastructure that qualifies as an asset, or are we paying for operating costs?

[jstolarczyk]

You know if families took better care of their own elderly, paid their own medical expenses, if we did not subsides failing farms, pay for performance art that sucks, a radio station that appeals to the sleepless, payed mothers to have babies, or abort them ( a womens right to choose, my burden to pay?). If the federal government did what it was originally designed to do, protect commerence, develop trade and maintain an armed forces, we would not lose BILLIONS in Medicare, welfare, crappy art, railroad museums, radio stations, and unnecessary pork by the barrel full, we would also, not have a deficit.

[Drango]

Well...just as long as he spends $20 million more for the NEA. I demand my neighbor pay for my Shakespeare tickets.

[annyokie]

You are over your head, my friend. Go away.

[DoctorMichael]

......and where are all the Porkers in Congress in all this?

It takes two to tango.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I am over your head because when it comes down to it, you don't have a clue of what you are talking about. You know the sound clips...I will go away. And, everything is not ok, but keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

[Ol' Sparky]

However, Cato's fiscal analyst Veronique de Rugy notes: "The current president easily eclipses his father on federal spending growth." De Rugy and Cato researcher Tad DeHaven calculate that in real, or inflation-adjusted terms, non-defense discretionary outlays will rise about 20.8 percent in George W. Bush's first three years in office (through FY2004). That growth far exceeds the 11.6 percent growth in the first three years of former President Bush's administration. Indeed, the current president's three-year real increase exceeds Jimmy Carter's term (13.8 percent), Ronald Reagan's first term (-13.5 percent), Reagan's second term (-3.2 percent), Bill Clinton's first term (-0.7 percent), and Clinton's second term (8.2 percent). See table for details.

[jstolarczyk]

I do not disagree, but if he works to support his base, I would expect those doing the yelling, to also talk the talk and walk the walk, by supporting the President at the polls.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

One more thing, I just looked at your profile. If you are an MBA, you know the difference between a capitalizable asset and operating expenses, don't you?

[hawk1]

Bush feels he has a captive audience in his Republican base. Where will they go? He knows some of these hot button issues are unpopular. Seems risky.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Yes, you are 100% correct. Try telling that to the average socialist on this site...

[dirtboy]

I do not disagree, but if he works to support his base, I would expect those doing the yelling, to also talk the talk and walk the walk, by supporting the President at the polls.

I sincerely doubt that will be an issue if Bush supports his base...

[jstolarczyk]

Stick to truth, bad rhetoric never suffices for the truth.

[Merdoug]

"Bush Seeks to Soothe Republican Worries on Budget"

Translation: "Bush seeks to fool conservatives long enough to get re-elected."

[hawk1]

The noise has been made hopefully but the noise will make him change his position.