Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Washington's $782 Billion Spending Spree
Capitalism Magazine ^ | Novemebr 29, 2002 | Brian Riedl

Posted on 12/06/2002 7:41:37 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen

Summary: Politicians who want to spend even more money are telling taxpayers that it’s time to sacrifice. To which taxpayers should reply: “You first.”

“If we don’t … reaffirm our commitment to fiscal responsibility, years of hard work could be squandered,” Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently told Congress. Considering the ever-climbing spending levels on Capitol Hill these days, his warning makes perfect sense.

It didn’t used to be this way. In the mid-1990s, politicians began cutting wasteful government spending to balance the budget and bring relief to overtaxed families. Since 2000, however, things have changed, with almost-daily reports of yet another “record spending increase” from Congress.

With the 2003 federal budget almost done, there’s now a price tag for this 2000-2003 spending spree: $782 billion in new spending. Not $782 billion in total spending, mind you, but $782 billion above what Washington spent in the previous four years. Eventually, taxes will need to be raised by more than $5,000 per household to pay for it. With the exception of World War II, on a per-household basis, 2000-2003 will become the largest four-year federal spending spree in American history.

How did Congress and the president do it? Did they carefully assess the nation’s needs and then decide that one or two national priorities were worth an extra $782 billion? No. It’s a classic case of death by a thousand blows -- record spending increases for dozens of programs, none by itself fatal but collectively lethal. It’s what happens when undisciplined policymakers refuse to set priorities or say no to special interests.

Many lawmakers have tried to blame Sept. 11th-related defense spending. But new defense spending represents just 21 percent of the $782 billion total spending increase, and less than a quarter of that increase can be attributed directly to the war on terrorism.

Others finger big-ticket entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, claiming that they’re growing uncontrollably. However, these program’s budgets haven’t grown any faster over the last four years than they did over the past two decades.

In fact, there is no way to explain or excuse the general pattern of persistent fiscal recklessness one finds in the federal budget. Over the past four years, Washington has heard calls for massive spending increases for numerous programs: farm subsidies, highways, education, healthcare, defense, homeland security, you name it. Had policymakers limited the hikes to one or two priorities, they could have controlled costs. Instead, they threw vast sums of money at all of these programs. The result: an unaffordable “guns and butter” budget.

Congress and the president couldn’t say no even to the lowest-priority programs. Few taxpayers can claim the Denali Commission (an Alaskan public-works program) enriches their lives. But Washington increased its four-year budget from $1 million to $169 million. How much of a national priority is the Bureau of Export Administration? The Maritime Administration? The Foreign Agriculture Service? Most Americans have never heard of these obsolete agencies, yet Congress and the president bumped each of their four-year budgets by more than 70 percent.

From 2000-2003, Washington had a rare opportunity to save the average household nearly $2,500 in taxes without reducing any federal services. After 50 years of steady increases, interest payments on the national debt declined by $247 billion from 2000 to 2003, thanks to the balanced budgets of the 1990s. Like the post-Cold War “peace dividend,” Congress and the president got a once-in-a-lifetime “interest dividend” of $247 billion.

And they squandered every penny.

They allocated all $247 billion to new spending, and when that money ran out, spent $782 billion more. That’s $1.029 trillion in new non-interest spending in just four years -- the largest increase since World War II.

More seems to be on the way. Congress and the president may spend as much as $600 billion over eight years for prescription drugs. Senators have endorsed a 600 percent increase for Amtrak. The House of Representatives passed legislation doubling the National Science Foundation’s budget. The Senate is in the process of adding $6 billion in farm subsidies, despite this year’s enactment of a record $180 billion farm bill. No one is proposing rolling back any of the 2000-2003 spending increases to pay for these new priorities.

Recession-weary policymakers may think this new spending will help the economy by injecting money into it. But they forget that every dollar the government spends must first be taxed or borrowed. The $5,000 per-household tax hike that will follow this spending spree can’t help but discourage the extra working, saving and investing we need to jumpstart our economy.

Politicians who want to spend even more money are telling taxpayers that it’s time to sacrifice. To which taxpayers should reply: “You first.”



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

1 posted on 12/06/2002 7:41:38 AM PST by Stand Watch Listen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Bush the conservative? Before he was nominated I said that he wasn't a conservative.
2 posted on 12/06/2002 8:03:36 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
Small price to pay to keep the country out of Jimmy Carter-like recession which would have cost us much more in the long run. No gloom and doom over Reagan's deficit spending as that investment came back in the 1990's, only problem was that Clinton was given all the credit.

You will see Bush proposing balanced budgets through the rest of his term, and with a Republican congress it might just happen.

3 posted on 12/06/2002 8:12:02 AM PST by AmusedBystander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: AmusedBystander
Huh? More spending to keep us out of a recession?
5 posted on 12/06/2002 8:15:47 AM PST by anobjectivist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AmusedBystander
I'll believe it when I see it.
6 posted on 12/06/2002 8:26:29 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AmusedBystander
Dream On! You ain's seen nothing yet.
7 posted on 12/06/2002 8:28:54 AM PST by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Don't you just love it when politicians of either party visit city or town x and proclaim:

"I am so proud to bring z million federal dollars to help the people of this community"

?

Such proclamations should be banned until penalty of jail.

Until the politicians stop feeling so good about their spending they sure aren't going to stop doing it. :(
8 posted on 12/06/2002 8:33:59 AM PST by cgbg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
The collapse of the supposed Republican Revolution demonstrates the truth of George Wallace's taunt three decades ago: There ain't a dime's worth of difference between the major parties.

HOW CONSERVATIVE IS PRESIDENT BUSH?

BUSH SPENDING BILL LARGEST EVER

Hooyah!

"The surest way to bust this economy is to increase the role and the size of the federal government."
George W. Bush - Source: Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000.

9 posted on 12/21/2002 2:36:24 AM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
BTTT
10 posted on 01/12/2003 4:23:35 PM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Hooyah!! indeed ...

How come this thread doesn't have 300 replies, Uncle Bill?

11 posted on 01/13/2003 10:08:35 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
With the 2003 federal budget almost done, there’s now a price tag for this 2000-2003 spending spree: $782 billion in new spending. Not $782 billion in total spending, mind you, but $782 billion above what Washington spent in the previous four years. Eventually, taxes will need to be raised by more than $5,000 per household to pay for it. With the exception of World War II, on a per-household basis, 2000-2003 will become the largest four-year federal spending spree in American history.

Thank goodness Bush is giving the SEC .85 billion dollars to keep an eye on evil corporations. But nobody needs to keep an eye on the government. We can trust them. And in related news, the accounting oversight board voted themselves half million dollar salaries. There's a new tone in Washington.

12 posted on 01/14/2003 12:11:09 AM PST by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
How did Congress and the president do it? Did they carefully assess the nation’s needs and then decide that one or two national priorities were worth an extra $782 billion?

They looked at what votes were for sale and then how much they could pay for them with other people's money.

It’s a classic case of death by a thousand blows -- record spending increases for dozens of programs, none by itself fatal but collectively lethal.

A billion here, a billion there. Before you know it, that adds up to real money.

13 posted on 01/14/2003 12:14:19 AM PST by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
"Bush the conservative? Before he was nominated I said that he wasn't a conservative. "

test time?

Under Ronald Reagan the federal outlay went up 7 out of 8 years. The US went over 200 Billion in debt under Reagan.

test: Was Reagan a Conservative?

14 posted on 01/14/2003 12:23:58 AM PST by america-rules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: america-rules
Money isn't the only test.

Would Reagan have signed CAFR?

Would Reagan be considering giving amnest to MILLIONS of ILLEGAL aliens?

Would Reagan have proposed giving those same ILLEGAL aliens social security?

Did Reagan propose a piddly 10% reduction in the income tax and then settle for a plan that brought them in incrementally over TEN years (only to have an automatic sunset in the 11th year)?

Would Reagan have bought that "don't ask, don't tell" B.S. that Bush has?
15 posted on 01/14/2003 5:37:14 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (From time to time the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants.-T.J.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Askel5; MissAmericanPie
Can you feel that compassionate conservatism coming?

Spending Bill to Test Senate GOP - Thursday, January 16, 2003
"Republican senators, who hope to use their new majority status to enact the president's agenda, yesterday began trying to clear a major obstacle: a mammoth, more than $400 billion spending package...The spending bill, among the largest in memory, will determine this year's funding levels for homeland security, education, drought relief for farmers, Medicare payments to doctors and the budgets of scores of federal agencies. Republicans have vowed to pass it quickly, as proof that GOP control of Congress can overcome the bickering that stalled dozens of initiatives last year.

But even as Republicans brought the measure to the Senate floor late yesterday, it was clear that the tight fiscal constraints ordered by the White House,..."


"tight fiscal constraints ordered by the White House." Tight fiscal constraints? Hahahahaha. LOL!

Shocking, just shocking. Thank goodness the Republicans are "winning."

16 posted on 01/15/2003 9:20:56 PM PST by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
You were right and I was wrong about how in debt we are. We are 34 trillion in debt. No one can possibly wrap their mind around that figgure.

I posted on another thread that we have a mere 200 billion stars in our solar system, 34 trillion adds up to almost a universe of spending. It more than boggles the mind.
17 posted on 01/15/2003 9:45:24 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Gee ... consciences sure are going for quite a lot these days ... particularlyi given the fact that most have the consistency and substance of a June Bug shell.
18 posted on 01/16/2003 7:24:15 AM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
Many lawmakers have tried to blame Sept. 11th-related defense spending. But new defense spending represents just 21 percent of the $782 billion total spending increase, and less than a quarter of that increase can be attributed directly to the war on terrorism.

The GOP should be ashamed. (And this thread should have 1000 replies by now, though I'm not surprised it doesn't.)

19 posted on 01/16/2003 7:27:05 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Rolling back decades of governmental largesse bump.
20 posted on 01/16/2003 7:41:46 AM PST by FOMTY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson