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

Skip to comments.

BUSH'S ACHILLES' HEEL
National Review Online ^ | February 11, 2003 | By Veronique de Rugy

Posted on 02/14/2003 10:01:53 PM PST by Uncle Bill

Bush’s Achilles’ Heel

Government Spending Is Out Of Control.

National Review Online
By Veronique de Rugy
February 11, 2003

Is there much to celebrate in George W. Bush's proposed 2004 budget? To be sure, the president is proposing meaningful tax reform that will make America more competitive and move us closer to a simple and fair flat tax. Yet before we rush to give the administration an "A," let's open up the budget and take a look at some of the gory details.

Sadly, a cursory inspection reveals that the president is engaged in an overspending frenzy that continues to reward programs that should be abolished. The White House argues that "we need spending discipline" but turns right around and boosts domestic spending by "only" 4% next year. Of course, this assumes that Congress will resist the bipartisan temptation to spend our money on pork-barrel projects. And it also assumes that the president will veto a bill that spends too much money — something he has not done since taking office.

Government spending is President Bush's Achilles' heel. In his first two years in office, he signed a bloated education bill and a subsidy-laden farm bill. Also, numbers show that in the first three years this administration will have increased government spending by 13.5%, making this administration more profligate than the Clinton administration.

The president's defenders argue that everything must take a back seat to the war on terror, implying that increased spending is mainly the result of defense outlays. Yet the data show that spending has increased in all areas.

According to Chris Edwards at the Cato Institute, over the first three years of Bush budgeting, non-defense discretionary outlays will rise 18% — a number that far exceeds the spending increases during the first three years of the last six administrations. And it pales in comparison to the Ronald Reagan budgets. President Reagan restored America's military during his two terms, boosting defense outlays by 19.2% in the first term and 10.4% in the second. But Reagan also reduced non-defense outlays, cutting domestic spending by 13.5% in the first term and 3.2% in the second. That is real budget discipline.

President Bush is also spending more than Bill Clinton. Clinton actually reduced non-defense outlays in his first term, albeit by only 0.7%. And, for all his flaws, he still signed market-oriented reforms such as NAFTA, farm deregulation, telecommunications deregulation, and financial-services deregulation.

The overall numbers show spending is growing too fast. But the details of the president's budget are even more discouraging. Only the Justice and the Labor Departments — 2 of 21 major department agencies — will see their budgets reduced. Taxpayers also are being burdened with new programs, including the $15 billion Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and $450 million to bring mentors to disadvantaged students and to the children of prisoners. Are these really legitimate functions of the federal government? What happened to the Constitution?

And let's not forget corporate welfare. Bush's proposal to give $1.7 billion over the next 5 years — more than $50 per American — to the automobile industry through the Freedom Fuel and FreedomCAR programs for hydrogen-fuel-cell research and development illustrates this spending frenzy. Those programs are extensions of the $1.5 billion failed Partnership for the New Generation of Vehicles program, under the Clinton administration. After eight years of subsidies, it is time to say no.

To be fair, President Bush probably would prefer less spending, but he does not want to be attacked for being "mean-spirited." But special-interest lobbyists see this as a sign of weakness and act accordingly. After all, Washington is the only place in the world where spending increases are classified as spending cuts merely because the increase was smaller than the big spenders wanted.

We also know that President Bush is committed to reforming Social Security. But Social Security reform was nowhere to be found in this budget. Maybe the administration is waiting for the second term to move forward with the much-needed private accounts. At this rate, though, there might not be a second term. So would it not be wiser to expend some political capital promoting Social Security reforms that would give the economy a tremendous boost?

At the end of the day, over-spending matters because big government hurts our economy's performance. Fiscal responsibility means more than just lower taxes. It also means having the courage to say no to wasteful spending — even if that means Ted Kennedy will get upset.

President Bush's tax agenda is great news for the American people. His stated commitment to Social Security reform would be good for workers and retirees. But so far it is only talk and no action. To maximize the economic benefits of these policies, the president needs to put big government on a diet.

Veronique de Rugy is a fiscal policy analyst at the Cato Institute.


Who stated the following:

"Government ought to have a policy that helps people with a downpayment."

A. - OR - B.

Answer

You are not hallucinating, he really wants to have the government provide downpayments.


$3,400,000,000,000 (TRILLION) OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY IS MISSING

Bush Signs Largest Family Planning Bill In U.S. History
"On Thursday, January 10, 2002, the White House reported President Bush signed the ominous $15.4 billion foreign appropriations bill, H.R. 2506, for fiscal-year 2002. The bill authorizes $446.5 million U.S. tax dollars to be given to other countries for abortion-family planning activities throughout the world. The abortion-family planning funds approved by Bush represents an increase of $21.5 million over last year for international family planning."

AND THESE ARE REPUBLICANS - "Despite the fact that the Republicans control the White House, the House of Representatives, and 30 governorships, the nation is now in the midst of the biggest government spending spree since LBJ. Incredibly, the domestic social welfare budget has expanded more in just two years ($96 billion) under George W. Bush than in Bill Clinton's first six years in office ($51 billion)."

The Return of Big Government - Federal spending is skyrocketing, but shockingly little of it is related to Sept. 11. - Fortune

Bush Spending Bill Largest Ever

Washington's $782 Billion Spending Spree

Bush Calls For $400 Billion In Medicare Spending

Meanwhile, Back On The Farm

Bush Urges Congress to Deliver on Prescription Drugs for Medicare

Bush Asks for $15 Billion to Fight AIDS in Africa

Bush Seeks Nearly $60 Billion In New IT Spending

Bush Seeks 50 Percent Foreign Aid Boost

Bush Releases $200M in Heating Aid

Congress OKs spending bill (including $90k for cowgirl museum bilingual audio tour)

"President Bush yesterday said Americans are duty-bound to 'share our wealth' with poor nations and promised a 50 percent increase in foreign aid"

Bush Plans New Agency to Dole Out Billions in Aid

Washington's Dead Donkeys (Out Of Control Spending And Lies By Republicans)

Bush 2004 Budget Plan Tops $2 Trillion

Bush Likely to Project Record Budget Deficits

PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNS WETLANDS ACT

Phony Faith-Based Initiative


Bush's Dirty Little Budget Secret - "If you think President Bush's tax cuts will save you money, guess again, .. 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,"

One example:

"This farm bill will cost the average American taxpaying family $4,300 in higher taxes."

"Not over my dead body will they raise your taxes,"
George W. Bush - SOURCE.


GEORGE W. BUSH'S LIMITED GOVERNMENT

President George W. Bush - Biography

SOURCE: http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html

"George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. Formerly the 46th Governor of the State of Texas, President Bush has earned a reputation as a compassionate conservative who shapes policy based on the principles of limited government,..."

A Government Limited To What?


HOW CONSERVATIVE IS PRESIDENT BUSH?

"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.

GEORGE W. BUSH: CLINTON'S THIRD TERM © - Norman Liebmann

DON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN


For the children:

How Big Is The Government Debt? - $33.1 TRILLION


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News
KEYWORDS: bush; socialism; spending
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-124 next last
To: go star go
We're all idiots who can't comeup with an original thought!

Well,now that you mention it,yeah. After all,you still believe Ken Starr was on the up and up.That doesn't leave much mystery about how you could be such a blind Ali Bubba supporter.

101 posted on 02/15/2003 6:36:13 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Way too much time on your hands!
102 posted on 02/15/2003 6:37:40 AM PST by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
Bush's Ashcroft seems clearly better on the Second Amendment than we'd get with a Gore nominee.

The "No-Justice Dept" under Janet Ashcroft has a OFFICIAL WRITTEN POSITION that "although the 2nd Amendment guarantees the individual the right to own guns,the federal government still reserves the right to place reasonable restrictions on that right". In other words,"I did NOT have sex with that woman,Monica Lewinsky". If they can regulate it,with "reasonable restrictions" and THEY are the ones who gets to define what "reasonable" is,the individual right is null and void.

103 posted on 02/15/2003 6:40:58 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Red Jones
I think that he's a communist instead. The younger bush is also a communist.

Nah,they are actually both "One-Worlder Fascists".They see the ideal system is one that is ran like a corporation,so they want to see America no longer be a sovereign nation. The Bush family see themselves in the role of the ruling class,and that's why Ali Bubba refuses to close the borders or crack down on illegal aliens. There is another Jorge Bush waiting in the background to run for president,Jeb's half-Mexican son. The Bush family needs and wants those Mexican votes in order to insure he gets elected. Once he does,look for the move to be made to unite Mexico,Canada,and the US into one nation/economic block. When you create a new nation,you need a new Constitution.

104 posted on 02/15/2003 6:57:57 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Red Jones
BTW,communism and fascism are identical systems from the point of view of the people at the bottom. Both are totalarian police states. It's only at the top that the differences become apparant. The communist leadership are required to hide their personal wealth,where the fascist leadership is allowed to flaunt theirs. Both are throwbacks to the old feudal systems where you have a nobility and a peasant class. This is why I coined the term "Corporate Communism" for the new system Blair,Clinton,and Bush push. Corporate wealth and benefits for those at the top,and instead of citizens you have "employees". Just a modern word for "serf".
105 posted on 02/15/2003 7:02:44 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
I just saw a portion of the "threating" press-conference and am about ready to ask President Bush to replace the UNION led police and firefighters with National Guard.

There ya go! Maybe we could give them uniforms with knee high boots and leather coats? Maybe even a nifty new name to go along with them being drafted into Ali Bubba's new "Office of Reich Security"? How about "Gestapo"? I know it has been used before,but it's hard to beat the "classics".

At any rate we can't have all these people running around making decisions on their own about what they can or can not join,can we? Dat be un-Murikan!

106 posted on 02/15/2003 7:08:38 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
There are 54 links in his original thread ... and not one original Uncle Bill generated word or comment.

So,what is your point? Do you want him to reference news stories,press releases,and government documents,or do you want him to make things up? He doesn't HAVE to say a word when his links can do all his talking for him.

107 posted on 02/15/2003 7:11:05 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Since most of us "aren't very bright" turn on your lights and enlighten us.

Calling YOU "not very bright" would be bragging on you if you are stupid enough to think I am a Bubba-1 supporter. In fact,"Stupid" would be a status you aspire to obtain.

I would rather spend my doing doing something easier than trying to enlighten you. Teaching mules how to tap dance comes to mind as one example.

108 posted on 02/15/2003 7:14:34 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
WOW impressive. So you don't like BUBBA hate BUSH even more, so who is left.
109 posted on 02/15/2003 7:19:37 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
At least the National Guard would not threaten the security of our nation because there are not enought "FEDERAL FIREFIGHTERS and FEDERAL POLICE". This is exactly what was said by some firefighter.
110 posted on 02/15/2003 7:22:24 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
I look forward to Uncle Bills bold maneuver, our first Free Republic Filibuster tomorrow: One thread, One man, Links to Every Page on the World Wide Web. All 48 million of them. It's going to be bigger than the Houston 500. I just hope he doesn't order the fluffers from that service that advertises that "Most of our girls have some of their teeth."

Gimme a break sir. If you opened and read every link at the top of this page, we'd peek into your office early March and find your skeletal remains at the keyboard. And you didn't get to the 39th link, that's the "Bush Baked Beans" scandal. You've led a virtuous full life, Pete, I'm not going to call your 67% completion rate here a human travesty.

There is a time when the word "overkill" comes to mind.

111 posted on 02/15/2003 7:25:21 AM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
He doesn't HAVE to say a word when his links can do all his talking for him.

The links are saying psychosis.

112 posted on 02/15/2003 7:41:52 AM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
well, I do agree with you that obviously the Bush's are very big for the New World Order, they even say so. And the NWO is just as you said. I was only saying that if you look at what the elder bush did to the economy when he was pres the only way you can make sense of it is that he seems to have wanted to do bad to the economy. Maybe that's part of the NWO plan to humble america. The younger bush seems to be doing the same IMO. His massive spending growth on bureaucracy in washington while imposing draconian cuts in medicaire doesn't make sense. I don't trust the Bush'. They're anti-american in their behavior.

The way we're trading with CHina is suicidal for our nation. I was watching recently on cspan. They had a panel of people speaking about the massive trade deficit. One economist was saying exactly what I've been saying here. That it is shocking and unbelievable and incredible that the chinese currency does not float. She said it is allowed to float within a range, but is not really free, that it is pegged very much artificially low. And we're trading with them on this scale. This amounts to actual sabotage of the american economy. Bush 1 started these trade terms. Clinton continued them. Bush 2 is also continuing them. But in the meantime we have this 5% of gdp trade deficit financed by borrowing. We're being set up for disaster it seems or our leaders are the stupidest people in the world.

THe old paradigm of conflict between liberals and conservatives or between democrats and republicans is completely outdated and suicidal for our people to engage in today. The new paradigm is anti new world order or pro-new world order. The politicians of both parties are compromised, our media is compromised. Our people are in the dark and playing right into their hands with these petty rivalries between the dems and the repubs.

Our only chance is to vote out incumbents in congress, all of them, who support NWO policies. NWO policies include the refusal to stop illegal immigration, h1b, the stupid trade policies, the rural cleansing which bush has not reversed effectively and regulations to stop american industry from thriving in america. We re-elect 98% of our politicians when they run for re-election. We let the news media decide who we don't re-elect even. The people are completely out of the loop. So, it is just as if a communist cabal has taken over and rendered our democracy a useful idiot tool for them. But it is New World Order instead. If we re-elected 30% of our congressmen instead of 98%, then we'd have a chance.
113 posted on 02/15/2003 8:31:24 AM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
you're right. anybody who believes that Ken Starr was on the up and up and puts him on a pedestal as we've seen, well that person is just like a peasant in ancient Rome going to a gladiator contest and finding meaning to his life there. worshoping the idols laid out before us for the sake of occupying our minds and passions.
114 posted on 02/15/2003 8:42:56 AM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
Dittos to your concern that the feds might destroy the 2nd Amendment via "reasonable regulation" and thanks for the Justice Department quote:

"although the 2nd Amendment guarantees the individual the right to own guns,the federal government still reserves the right to place reasonable restrictions on that right".

I prefer to hope for this as a bright spot in the Bush administration, since the JD supports, at least rhetorically, the individual right to keep and bear arms.

(I see reasonable regulation as including the possession of nuclear weapons and other WMD - drawing the bright margin line, well...)

In specific defense of Ashcroft - I think he defended not keeping a national database of gun owners.

115 posted on 02/15/2003 9:07:12 AM PST by secretagent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
So you don't like BUBBA hate BUSH even more, so who is left.

Nobody. Or at least nobody who has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being elected. The problem is we now only have one party,and it has two brances. Neither branch is going to allow anybody who would change the direction we are headed to ever get the nomination. Too many rice bowls would be overturned.

116 posted on 02/15/2003 1:18:33 PM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
This is exactly what was said by some firefighter.

That's scary.

117 posted on 02/15/2003 1:59:41 PM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Red Jones
The way we're trading with CHina is suicidal for our nation. I was watching recently on cspan. They had a panel of people speaking about the massive trade deficit. One economist was saying exactly what I've been saying here. That it is shocking and unbelievable and incredible that the chinese currency does not float. She said it is allowed to float within a range, but is not really free, that it is pegged very much artificially low. And we're trading with them on this scale. This amounts to actual sabotage of the american economy. Bush 1 started these trade terms. Clinton continued them. Bush 2 is also continuing them.

Bush-1 used to be the Ambassador to China,as well as the head of the CIA. This provided him with VERY good contacts without the heirarchy of the Chinese Communist party,and resulted in Prescott Bush being business partners with the fascists that now run China. Bush-2/Bubba-2 granted China PERMANENT "Most Favored Nation" trade status,despite their use of slave labor and police state tactics. Of course,I'm sure this is all just coincidencial. Besides,it ain't like any married man is getting a blowjob,or anything serious.

The new paradigm is anti new world order or pro-new world order.

Yup,except for the pro-NWO types are firmly in control now. They won. They are in control of both the DNC and the RNC,and they are the ones who manage the political "farm teams" that determines which politicians get to play in the big leagues,and which stay with the local teams.

The politicians of both parties are compromised,

We only have one party. It has two branches,the prime difference being which group of party insiders get the biggest split of the spoils.

118 posted on 02/15/2003 2:09:21 PM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: secretagent
(I see reasonable regulation as including the possession of nuclear weapons and other WMD - drawing the bright margin line, well...)

That doesn't apply,since the 2nd Amendment only recogonizes the right of the INDIVIDUAL citizen to possess the weapons normally posessed by the INDIVIDUAL infantryman. "Armed" was a term than meant individual arms,NOT crew-served weapons,or TRUE weapons of mass destruction such as nukes,bio,or chemical weapons. The purpose of this was to insure the infantry militia showed up when called,already armed and ready to go. Because of expense,mobility,and the practical concern that one central rally point was needed,it was generally accepted that the milita heavy weapons such as cannons would be kept in the possession of the local authorities. These were the crew-served weapons of the day.

BTW,PLEASE note that NOTHING written above FORBIDS the possession of crew-served weapons,or even TRUE weapons of mass destruction. It just doesn't recogonize their possession as a RIGHT.

119 posted on 02/15/2003 2:16:08 PM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
The more things change the more they stay the same.

We now find ourselves in a situation where neither party recognizes individual Rights or supports limited government.

Instead, America is being sucked down the drain of a global New World Order by willing accomplices in both parties.

120 posted on 02/15/2003 8:10:54 PM PST by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-124 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