- 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
Take a good look at New Jersey and that will be the whole country in 2004 or 2008. What you had was Christy Whitless spending like a drunken sailor. Then we got a RAT candidate, McGreevey, promising to be more fiscally responsible than the Republicans. He gets elected and raises taxes by blaming the excesses of the previous administration. I doubt Bush will raise taxes, but he is setting the stage for a democrat victory in 2004 or 2008 who will. We need to dump Bush overboard in the 2004 primaries.
That might be true if we were spending the money on the means to survival. Hover most of it is being wasted. Tell me, if you were worrying about survival would you go out and rack up massive credit card debt on stereos and dvds?
As to socialist agenda, I just translate that to government social programs and domestic spending proposals. The two parties seem about the same, with some differences.
For example, the Dems want to keep social security as it is, with the Reps hinting at reform. Bush, on the other hand, took the lead in expanding the role of the Feds in education.
I miss the bold talk of 94 - "Abolish the NEA".
That the dumbets thing I've ever seen posted!
I'm sure you do. There's noone for your Demonrat friends to demonize like Newt today huh...
Otherwise, keep up the good work. It's not enough to cut taxes, Bush has to cut spending, too. This stuff is going to catch up with us, especially as the population starts moving onto social security in higher and higher numbers.
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.