- OR - B. 
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.
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."
Bush Spending Bill Largest Ever
Washington's $782 Billion Spending Spree
Bush Calls For $400 Billion In Medicare Spending
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)
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
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,..."
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
For the children:
How Big Is The Government Debt? - $33.1 TRILLION
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
The links are saying psychosis.
"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.
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.
That's scary.
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.
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.
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.
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.