President presides over burgeoning government, aggravated by concerns over security after 9/11
Houston Chronicle
By JULIE MASON
Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
January 26, 2003
Source
WASHINGTON -- Addressing the delegates more than two years ago at the Republican National Convention, President Bush invoked a line that had become a sort of mantra.
"Big government is not the answer," he said.
Now, just past the midway point of his first term in office, Bush is presiding over the largest, most expensive -- and, some would say, most intrusive -- federal government in history.
While burgeoning big government cannot be blamed entirely on the Bush administration, polls have shown Americans becoming more critical of the job Bush is doing, particularly on economic issues. Within his own political party, once fiercely loyal conservatives are beginning to question the direction in which Bush is taking the country.
Tuesday, Bush will deliver a State of the Union address aimed at selling his economic policies and rallying the nation behind plans for war with Iraq while also touting new spending priorities for the coming fiscal year.
"This State of the Union will describe his vision of what role the United States should play in the world, how to bring help to the American people who need help and compassion, and how to strengthen the economy," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.
Shortly after the State of the Union, Bush is expected to submit to Congress a $2.1 trillion federal budget that holds the increase in discretionary spending to about 4 percent -- far short of last year's 14 percent increase and part of a deliberate White House strategy to hold the line on spending that's not tied to fixed programs such as Social Security.
But the administration's new austerity plan may be too little, too late, observers say. In the past five years, while median household income has grown by about 16 percent, the federal government's spending has increased by 45 percent.
The trend was under way when Bush took office. After a four-year period ending in 1997 that saw fairly stable spending management -- Congress' budget authority grew from $509 billion to $511 billion -- a spike began in 1998, when federal spending got an $18 billion boost to $529 billion. Spending in 2003 could top $750 billion.
So far, the administration has been able to deflect much of the criticism about the size and scope of the federal government by attributing much of the increase to the war on terror.
But budget analysts and some members of Congress increasingly are challenging that claim, noting that only about one-third of the recent budget increases can be traced directly to homeland security costs; the first-year homeland security price tag is $33 billion.
"I think everybody understands that in a family emergency, you spend what it takes to keep healthy and then when it's over, you get right back to your budget," said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, a Bush ally. "But we have just been spending out of control and using the war as an excuse, and it needs to stop."
Bush in 2000 campaigned extensively on promises to scale back government -- a cornerstone value for the GOP -- while depicting his opponent, Democrat Al Gore, as a supporter of big government.
When Bush last year was forced to contend with a Democratic-controlled Senate, he frequently complained that government was too big, saying as recently as May 2002 that "America doesn't need more big government, and we've learned that more money is not always the answer."
Yet government has grown markedly under Bush, notably with creation of the new Homeland Security Department, the largest new federal bureaucracy since the creation of the Department of Defense in the 1940s.
With its new powers to monitor citizens and visitors, the homeland security effort also has drawn criticism from those who oppose government intrusion as well as government size -- most often, conservatives and civil libertarians.
"Americans should be concerned about continuing the tradition of limited government," said John Samples, director of the Center for Representative Government at the conservative Cato Institute.
"When government seems to be doing something good, such as when Americans felt insecure after 9/11, the extension of government powers can be seen as reassuring," Samples said. "But it is precisely at times like that, when it's most difficult, that people should be questioning whether we should be restricting constitutional liberties."
Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, Bush has enjoyed tremendous popular support, with approval ratings reaching 89 percent. More recently, his numbers have dipped to the mid-50s, attributable in large part to public doubt about Iraq and the economy.
Democratic strategist James Carville said that "perceptions are hardening" about Bush's presidency and are not likely to rebound without major improvements in the economy.
"His answer to everything is to give a tax cut to his campaign supporters," Carville said. "You can't go out to a black church and talk about faith-based initiatives and change that perception."
For more than a year, Bush has leveraged his durable popularity to dismiss that type of criticism as politically motivated attacks by ideological opponents.
But as public concern over terrorism gives way to concern over the economy, Bush is left to find ways to pay for a giant government bureaucracy erected in part to address a concern Americans don't rate as highly anymore.
While White House budget analysts are predicting the federal deficit will reach $300 billion in the next two years, Bush is asking Congress to pass a $674 billion tax cut package that Democrats are calling a windfall for the rich.
In the coming months, Bush also is expected to ask Congress to impose new limits on late-term abortion, abortion access for teens and human cloning -- all issues likely to spark more controversy than restore his public approval ratings, observers say.
Some of Bush's policies also pursue an agenda that is anathema to conservatives, such as new Department of Education policies mandating math and reading tests for students.
Much like big government, federal standards for education contradict a prized Republican value that federal officials should respect states' rights and not impose mandates from above.
"He has been controversial since day one and has paid no price for that -- even though the things he has pursued and policies he's advanced are inconsistent with the interests of a plurality of Americans," said Bruce Buchanan, a government professor at the University of Texas at Austin.
At the same time, Buchanan said, Bush has benefited from a public affection for strong leadership, particularly post-9/11, that has had an empowering effect on his presidency.
But tests are looming for Bush. Even Karl Rove, White House senior adviser, predicts the 2004 race for president will be close, despite the political luxury of having a solid GOP majority in Congress for the second half of Bush's term.
Brady, who is pushing a bill based on Texas' system of sunset rules and elimination of redundancy in government, said getting spending under control must be a priority for both parties.
"Washington forever has just been allergic to the word `no,' and we have to get over it," Brady said. "It's been way too long; we have to get back to a balanced budget."
Socialism won the 2000 election
WASHINGTON (January 30, 11:00 a.m. PST) - President Bush is seeking to spend $3.9 billion of the Agriculture Department's money to protect the environment and conserve land for the budget year that begins Oct. 1, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman said Thursday.