Posted on 02/05/2003 9:00:28 PM PST by 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."
Huh? Anyone who wants drugs can get drugs, easily and quickly. Dealers, users and traffickers know that more than anyone. And that is winning the war? LOL
LOL! Looking at the results of last November, it seems that the American people are not buying the Libertarian arguement, that validating drugs is the panacea.
That's the reality. Sorry that you don't like it.
Oh yeah one pro-pot intiative passed last November and it was in that "conservative" bastion called San Francisco, correct?
Anyone can get drugs anytime and more people use drugs than did before your second prohibition started. It has failed in all it's goals.
That's the reality. Sorry that you don't like it.
Really? That famous chart from drugwarfacts.org showed that drug use peaked per capita in 1980 and has been going down since.
And oh yeah another interesting corollary, 1980 was the year the Libertarian party got it's most votes, the same year drug use peaked.
Now a drug user and trafficker who claims to have quit is trying to turn it into a thread on the WOD. All of this to avoid the substance of the article.
I'm not saying you are trying to avoid it, just that when you make comments on different topics, like the Libertarian Party, it plays right into their hands and helps them to change the subject to something other than big spending Republicans who are trying to outflank the Democrats on their left.
If they want drugs, they can always look you up as well, your fellow stoners are probably still in business.
I will bet you or any other poster whatever you wish that overall federal spending NEVER decreases under either the Demopublicans or the Repocrats.
They don't even TALK about "smaller government" any more.
And there'll always be a silly excuse of one kind or another.
I knew it that when you are losing an arguement, your bitter ad hominems oozes out for everyone to see.
Like it or not drug use is down since it peaked in 1980 and that really irks you that people aren't following your yellow brick road of "Liberty" and breaking their shackles to light up a doobie or whip out a crack pipe on every street corner to decalre their independence from the statists, who "chain" us.
JMO, but I think you are the same road as Abbie Hoffman with your bitterness.
What's limp is your logic. Keep drinking the Koolaid and paying your ever increasing taxes, komrade. Watch the welfare state beggar your family while you support freeloaders who raise criminals. And whatever you do, always vote republican, even if the candidate has a noodle for a spine and a vacuum for a brain.
Da !
Drugs use is not down despite whatever "source" on the internet you use that fits your fancy. And the fact remains, anyone can get drugs anytime. The second prohibition doesn't work any better than the first one did. And one of us never used any ilict drugs, and that person is me. The other person, the one accusing people of using, is the admitted user.
And the topic of this thread is Republican spending. Focus, focus, you can do it.
Yep I guess I will always have to live with the shame of campaigning for the 1980 Libertarian candidate for President(Ed Clarke).
That's the reality. Sorry that you don't like it.
The American people do not want to win the war on drugs. Oh yeah, they may say they do. But to win it, the US must adopt Draconian measures that the people wouldn't stand for. So Americans' votes mean nothing.
It's like the speeding limit and mandatory seat belts. Most people "think it's a good idea" and vote for it. But then they ignore the same laws they voted for.
And most Americans want lower taxes and less govt -- but they also want more services and protection.
So yeah, Americans may want to vote away drugs -- but they do not want to win the drug war, not at the cost of civil liberties that would be required.
The war on drugs is lost, as is the war on taxes and less govt. It's because the sheeple want contradictory things, and the politicians know it.
Bush = Clinton
Ashcroft = Reno
Thanks for the laugh.
In principle I agree our income tax rate should be around 0% to 3 %. That dream is never going to happen.
Hears a hint: The Libertarian Party will never get enough support from the general public to pass that type of policy until they clean up their positions on drugs and abortion.
The vast majority of Americans are completely clueless on what affects their lives. Most think what was on the last Simpson's episode is far more important than what their congress critter is stealing from them.
2004--Libertarians realize they will never be a major party.
2005--Libertarians begin to run (and win) as Republicans.
2006--Libertarian Caucus formed within the Republican party...They push the GOP further to the right...eventually reducing taxes by 90% on every American.
2010--Average tax rate for Americans = 5%
--Government's only functions are roads, courts, and defense (maybe a library or two)
--America reaches 35 trillion dollar GDP.
--The only democrats left are in the history books :) It's a wonderful dream... I hope it comes true. Bush is a great leader. There. That's my preface statement. The country is in FAR better hands than it has been since Reagen, especially considering world events since his Oath. Now, I can't see the underlying purpose behind every one of his ideas. Cutting taxes like this and then jacking up spending really, on a conservative level, doesn't seem to make sense. Hopefully, there is a plan that I am not seeing.
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.