- 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
I think that GWB is just like his father. When the senior bush was president he had a lot of policies that could only be explained by hosility to the american people. In that he was destroying the economy every way possible. Incredible and expensive regulations serving no purpose were imposed by the senior bush. He dictated rules to the S&L industry that could only be explained as a desire to destroy that industry. He succeeded in doing that too. He imposed regulations on the forests in the west that cost many jobs, destroyed whole towns and actually harmed the environment. The senior bush was a monster when it comes to the economy. I don't really believe he's as stupid as he pretends to be. I think that he's a communist instead. The younger bush is also a communist. But he's more sly about it. He's trying to destroy the economy, but he can't do it as diligently as his father because people would suspect his motives.
We should throw george bush out in 2004. Let the chips fall where they may. I do recognize him as an enemy. Our nation has been duped into letting him be president It's a communist plot.
I'm only half-joking. Based on their behavior it could very well be a communist plot.
I'm pretty sure this is called paranoia. One word.. LITHIUM
Lithium's not in my normal drug cocktail. Maybe I should try it. thanks for the tip.
Oh yes, the president's sex life is so much more relevant and important, isnt it?
I prefer comic books to text books myself
Is Uncle Bill the FR mime?
Which is exactly why Ali Bubba Bush started this war. He had mid-term elections coming up,and needed the country to rally around him at a time when the economy was going in the dumps and his poll numbers would have came down. As a result he blamed Iraq for what his family friends in Saudi Arabia are guilty of. It's a win/win situation for him. His poll numbers go up as people use the excuse you use to ignore the economy,his friends in Saudi Arabia get protected,as well as Israel getting protected,too. This is likely to bring him a few Jewish votes in 2004.
Meanwhile,the price of oil will continue to rise,puttting the economy further in the dump,while personally enriching the Bush family as their oil company stocks pay dividends and goes up in value.
But,HEY! What are the value of the deaths of tens of thousands of people when it comes to comparing that to the re-election of Ali Bubba,and making him and his friends even richer?
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.