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."
That's the second time you've accused the LP of harboring antisemites, but you've not explained why you say this. Is it because the LP wants to sever all foreign aid, and makes no exceptions for any nation, including Israel? But that's merely adhering consistently to principle.
Eliminating welfare would disproportionately hurt people of color. Does that make it a racist policy? And for that matter, foreign aid is a form of welfare. Conservatives supposedly believe that welfare creates dependency and ingratitude. Now, is this fundamental law of economics and human nature suspended when applied to Israel?
Or if you weren't referring to the LP's anti-foreign aid position, then to what? In my many years in the LP, I've met a high proportion of Jews, and no antisemites. So just what are you referring to?
Can you provide a link to the chart you speak of? I couldn't find such a thing on their site.
No president has ever reduced government spending across the board. Not a single, solitary one.
And, none ever will. Not really.
So all this talk about real reductions in spending is a waste of breath.
The president who actually does reduce spending is a dead man politically.
I don't like it, you don't like it, but that's the way it is.
They must have taken it down. The chart was upposed to show a corrolary between the 20's and 80's when prohibition showed sharp spikes in crime.
The other thing the chart showed was during the 50's when marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, were all illegal, the 50's had some of the 20th century's lowest crime rates. Kinda of put the kibosh on their contention that "prohibition" brings higher crime rates.
And yet, marijuana, heroin and cocaine were still illegal in the 60s, 70s and 80s, when we experienced the 20th century's highest crime rates.
Polk, Harding, Coolidge, Cleaveland.
I'm not talking about Presidents who had budgets of a buck-ninety-eight.
Modern times; the last forty years.
But one way in which the Socialists "took over" the Dems was not internally, but in building a separate socialst voting bloc and spoiling races for the Dems. Then the Dems changed their policies to siphon off the socialist votes.
Libertarians can influence the GOP by spoiling GOP races. The bigger the LP vote totals, the more pressure on the GOP to change their policies so as to win back LP voters.
Although Taft was probably the best, Wilson may well have been better than Teddy. Teddy was a "trust-buster" and foreign interventionist. Wilson held out until 1917. Teddy would have been in by 1914.
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.