Libertarian Party: Bush's Dirty Little Budget Secret

Libertarian Party press release ^ | February 5, 2003 | George Getz

[Commie Basher]

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: February 5, 2003
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Bush's dirty little budget secret: $10 in new spending for every dollar in tax cuts, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- If you think President Bush's tax cuts will save you money, guess again, Libertarians say, because the long-term spending increases in his new budget outnumber tax cuts by a ratio of 10 to 1.

"Showing gratitude for Bush's tax cuts is like thanking a pickpocket for returning $10 of the $100 he just stole," said Libertarian Party Chair Geoffrey Neale. "This budget proves that Bush and his Republican colleagues are nothing more than political pickpockets – and that the American people are their unwitting victims."

Bush presented Congress on Monday with a $2.23 trillion budget for fiscal 2004 that boosts federal spending by 4.2 percent overall while setting a record deficit and providing targeted tax cuts.

But Libertarians are warning Americans not to be distracted by Bush's tiny tax cuts – because they will be dwarfed by a massive increase in government spending over the next several years.

According to a budget analysis by the Cato Institute, Bush plans to increase federal outlays by $89 billion in 2004, $114 billion in 2005, and more than $100 billion in succeeding years, Neale noted.

"The bottom line is that federal spending would be $571 billion per year higher in 2008 than in 2003," he said. "By that point, Bush's tax cuts would be reducing federal revenue by just $50 billion annually – meaning long-term spending increases outnumber tax cuts 10 to 1.

"In plain English, something that is 'cut' is supposed to get smaller. But in Republicanese, 'tax cut' really means 'spending increase.' While some Americans will indeed get a small tax reduction now, they're going to pay for Bush's big-government agenda tomorrow, either through future tax hikes, more government borrowing, or both."

In fact, Bush's spending plans are so extravagant that he makes former President Bill Clinton look frugal by comparison, Neale noted.

"Clinton's 2000 budget called for spending $335 billion in fiscal 2004 on non-defense discretionary programs (excluding "entitlement" programs such as Medicare and Social Security)," he said. "But Bush is now calling for nearly $100 billion more than that: $429 billion."

The comparison gets even more stark when Bush's first three years in office are compared to Clinton's first three years, Neale pointed out.

"According to the Cato study, Bush has already expanded such domestic programs more than twice as much as Clinton did: 18 percent vs. 8.2 percent," he said. "It seems there really is a difference between Democrats and Republicans: Democrats brag about their big-government instincts, while Republicans lie about theirs."

But the budget trickery doesn't end with tax-cut shenanigans, Libertarians note.

"Remember how the president promised to 'save money' by consolidating dozens of federal agencies into one new, streamlined Department of Homeland Security?" Neale asked. "Bush's new budget provides a whopping $36.2 billion for the new bureaucracy, which is 7 percent more than had been spent on the agencies that were combined to create it."

Unfortunately for taxpayers, that's not all.

"Bush's projected budget deficit excludes hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities, such as Social Security payments," he said. "The military budget is scheduled to grow by $15.3 billion – but mysteriously excludes money for the impending war on Iraq. And Bush's 'solution' to runaway Medicare spending involves squandering another $400 billion on it."

Maybe it's time for the American people to deliver their own budget message, Neale suggested: "Mr. President, please stop saving us so much money. We just can't afford it."

[weikel]

Get out of here you troll its people like you who keep libertarians from adopting my approach.

[Dane]

Get out of here you troll its people like you who keep libertarians from adopting my approach.

Well excuse me, all great exalted one for my transgression.

PS, better let some air out of your ego.

[weikel]

Ill also add that the major barrier to the libertarians taking over the party is gone. The Christian Right has grown a lot more rational then they were ten years ago( ie given on a giant socialist plan to regulate morality) the hardcore culture warriors who want to ban all forms of fun have left.

[hove]

Hello people! Didn't I just see something about Bush sending up a proposed 2.2 trillion $ budget?? Our president damn sure isn't about reducing government! In fact.....he's a spending fool if he gets his way. Not very conservative from my perspective.

[Capitalism2003]

ahem...Part of the 2.2 trillion dollar budget is the 700 billion dollar tax cut package. Don't forget.

[M. Peach]

What a wonderful idea it would be to privatize as many governmental agencies as possible - education for one - and let the free market determine competence and success.

However, like Will Rogers said, "The politicians won't do it for 2 main reasons - the people want it and it makes sens."

The politicians would never risk losing their control and power by promoting and sanctioning it.....

What's your opinion?

[Capitalism2003]

Conservative politicians will GAIN power by REDUCING the power of government. Eliminating government agencies and handout programs will eliminate the democrat constituency. Every handout program we end allows more room to cut taxes...which reduces the need for these programs...eventually ending them...allowing taxes to be reduced further...As people become less and less dependant on government, they vote Republican...and the Reps stay in power. Less government = lower taxes = greater incentive to succeed = less of an entitlement mentality = the death blow to socialism

[M. Peach]

It really sounds good in theory, but there are too many people getting government entitlements from the public coffers, and too many liberal politicians continue to get re-elected by spending our tax dollars to do it.

I would have to say that many rinos prefer the liberal approach to acheiving power. Therefore, I believe that there are more politicians that use the liberal approach rather than the one you suggested to attain and maintain control.

I wish it were true, but I think the tide is towards socialism....

[weikel]

I would have to say that many rinos prefer the liberal approach to acheiving power

Hence the need for a libertarian pressure group within the Republican party.

[M. Peach]

I like to think of myself as an independent objectivist, but if I did have any leanings, I think it would be towards Libertarian....

However, how do you propose avoiding the problem of a libertarian pressure group only serving to split the Republican vote?

[Capitalism2003]

I don't think a libertarian caucus would split the Republican vote...certainly won't make any Reps vote for democrat ideas...If anything, it will be a competition between the right, and the far right...Personally, I see it as a win win situation. A freeze in entitlement spending, or a reduction in entitlement spending...a 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut, or a 3 trillion dollar tax cut? If we start off with these options...chances are we won't end very close to the left wing positions at all.

[weikel]

how do you propose avoiding the problem of a libertarian pressure group only serving to split the Republican vote

Hmmm? How would it split the vote thats one of the benefits is that it doesn't split the vote.

[fporretto]

The LP is a lost cause, weikel. At one time it was useful for advancing the understanding of how government in the U.S. has burst its Constitutional bonds. However, at this point, the lunatics have completely taken over the asylum. It no longer serves any constructive purpose to participate in it.

That having been said, I continue to support those who decide to vote their consciences, including the decision not to vote at all, even if that means that a weak-water RINO will occasionally lose to a Democrat. That's the price of not having firm principles and the ability to convey them to the electorate. Such defeats are the only mechanism by which GOP candidates will be taught to remain Constitutionally faithful in word and deed. Remember, they're in it for the power and prestige of office, or they'd be private citizens like the rest of us!

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

[weikel]

The lunatic fringe of the LP( anarchist, peacenikes, and antisemites) will never adopt my approach the rest might. Im not talking about the LP im talking about libertarians making an organized effort to get control of the Republican party machinery the way the commies did to the Dem party 100 years ago( the Dem party has been a communist front ever since WJB was nominated).

[BlueLancer]

"People don't understand...We CAN NOT SHRINK THE GOVERNMENT UNTIL WE GET 60 VOTES!!!"

I agree as well ...

Does that make us the Three Wise Men ...
Or the Three Stooges?

[weikel]

I didn't expect Bush to shrink the Government I did expect him to hold the line on nonmilitary spending which I must say he has not done.

[Protagoras]

Any comments on the contents of the article itself?

[Protagoras]

No comment on the article, just attacks off subject. Shoot the messenger.