Hey, Big Spenders!

The Weekly Standard ^ | December 8, 2003 | Fred Barnes

[RWR8189]

Under Bush, the era of small government is over.

WANT TO CURB federal spending? Replace President Bush with a Democrat. This is not entirely a joke. With Republicans in control of the White House and Congress since 2000--except for an interlude in 2001-2002 when Democrats held the Senate--spending has risen at roughly three times the rate of the 1990s when Democrat Bill Clinton was president. Back then, congressional Republicans stymied Democratic spending. Now, Republicans go along with Bush's spending initiatives, while he accedes to theirs. That's the way a governing majority operates.

Conservatives who favor smaller government are upset with Bush. Steve Moore of the Club for Growth says the administration hasn't come to grips with its spending problem. Republican senator John Sununu of New Hampshire believes the surge in federal spending clashes with the concept of limited government embraced by nearly all Republicans. Under Clinton, discretionary spending rose an average of 2.7 percent a year, but in the Bush years it has soared about 8 percent. Total federal spending, which includes entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, increased 1.7 percent in the Clinton years and just under 6 percent in the three years Bush has shaped the budget. To many conservatives, this trend is inexcusable.

Only, President Bush has an excuse--better yet, a reason--in 9/11 and the war on terrorism. Grant him this and the picture changes dramatically. Minus the additional expenditures for defense and homeland security, spending doesn't look so extravagant. In 2003, discretionary domestic spending rose 5 percent, while defense was up 11 percent and homeland security 85 percent. For 2004, the Office of Management and Budget projects a hike of less than 3 percent in domestic spending and rises of 4 percent in defense and 24 percent in homeland security. The defense number doesn't include "supplemental" spending of an estimated $50 billion in 2004 from the recent $87 billion appropriation for Iraq.

Bush hasn't abandoned spending restraint altogether. His tax cuts eventually may, as former senator Phil Gramm used to put it, "starve the spending." Budget director Josh Bolten says the White House has persuaded Congress to cap 2004 discretionary spending at $786 billion, not counting supplemental appropriations. But at the same time, Bush has promoted a prescription drug entitlement for the elderly priced at $400 billion over 10 years and an energy bill that triples the cost of the measure the president initially proposed. Nonetheless, Bush intervened last week to produce a compromise energy bill--but not a less costly one. And his effort failed, as six Republicans joined Democrats to block the bill in the Senate.

"Nobody was riding herd on the spending issues" in the energy legislation, according to Sununu. As a result, the bill turned into a porkfest that would cost $31 billion in subsidies and tax breaks, making it an instant symbol of government excess and corporate welfare. It would also micromanage parts of the energy industry through federal grants, while earmarking $1 billion for "coastal" programs in Louisiana. The measure would also spend $250 million apiece for such dubious projects as exploration of the "next generation" of lighting and photo-voltaic research. Neither Republican congressional leaders nor the White House did anything to rein in the bill's spending.

Bush had an opportunity last year to draw a limit on spending. The farm bill that reached his desk, drafted by then-Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, increased agricultural subsidies by $73.5 billion. But congressional Republican leaders backed it, and Bush never considered a veto (he has yet to veto a spending bill). Bush's economic adviser at the time, Larry Lindsey, went so far as to write a piece for the Wall Street Journal lauding the measure for meeting "the needs of farmers." Had Bush vetoed the bill, says Sununu, it "would have sent a very important message to everyone" on holding down spending.

Not that Bush doesn't routinely advocate fiscal conservatism. Last May, he insisted the best way to reduce the budget deficit is by controlling spending, not raising taxes. "It's to send clear priorities and say to the Congress, here are the guidelines, here's what we expect you to honor and that is, in this case, no more than 4 percent increase in discretionary spending," he said. "In other words, there needs to be fiscal sanity in Washington."

To meet the 4-percent goal, the president might have pushed for cuts in domestic social programs to help offset spending hikes in defense and homeland security. He didn't. The White House spins the spending on antiterrorist efforts and the war in Iraq as "one-time spending," a mere blip and not a recurring threat to the 4-percent goal.

Bush faces two more factors that conflict with spending restraint--and both are partly of his own making. One is his strategy for reelection in 2004: lock up the conservative base and go after the political center. His tax cuts, conservative values, and strong position on national security appeal to his base. But spending programs--a prescription drug benefit, energy subsidies, a lavish farm bill--are the easiest way to woo swing voters and win swing states.

The other factor is the governing majority Bush sits atop. Governing majorities can't stand still. Nor can they merely slash spending and reduce the size of government. To remain in power, they have to act, legislate, cope with inevitable national problems. That's what the public expects. Sure, if Democrats manage to send Bush an expensive energy bill, he'll have no qualms vetoing it. But veto a Republican bill that boosts Republican-leaning constituencies linked with his governing majority and affecting voter sentiment in key states? No way. Republican spending gets a pass, a cheer even.

The White House is feeling the pain of small government conservatives. One indication is the stress Bush aides put on the lowest spending figure, the one that leaves out defense, homeland security, and supplemental expenditures. Another is the White House's eagerness for a budget fight with Congress next year, with Bush leading the spend-less side. And the president intends to tout Social Security reform in his reelection campaign, arguing among other things that it's the only way to stem out-of-control spending on benefits. Will this strategy appease conservatives and thwart Democratic attempts to characterize him as fiscally reckless? Probably.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

[RJayneJ]

Quote of the Day by MissAmericanPie

[rmmcdaniell]

WANT TO CURB federal spending? Replace President Bush with a Democrat. This is not entirely a joke.

Sadly, I have recently begun contemplating voting to do just this. I will vote for Toomey or Spector regardless of who wins the primary, but I prefer Toomey. I'm not opposed to an all-Republican goverment. However If I have a choice between a liberal president who will be stymied by a Republican congress and a liberal president who get be granted every toy in the toystore; is it not better to get the former?

[RWR8189]

To me it seems like playing with fire.

What happens if we get a liberal president under that sort of view, and in squeaks a liberal Congress?

[Moonman62]

But congressional Republican leaders backed it, and Bush never considered a veto (he has yet to veto a spending bill).

I could be wrong, but I don't believe he's vetoed any bill. It's one big, expensive, wasteful "new tone" out there.

[Moonman62]

The White House is feeling the pain of small government conservatives.

Oh sure, there must be three or four of us left. One of the things that Bush has done that's made me really angry was how he portrayed a 4% increase in discretionary spending as some kind of austerity program for the government. His surprise trip to Baghdad is still super cool, though.

[larry h]

Bush could also be waiting to be elected to a second term,
one in which the disputed results of election 2000 won't matter much....In his second term, it could very well be cut, slash, and burn on "big government". But he has to
get re-elected first....

[ETERNAL WARMING]

I don't think Bush realizes just how many of us are angry and voting Third Party. It's JOBS, borders, spending, expanding government, etc. Wake up, GW before it's too late.

[Moonman62]

Bush could also be waiting to be elected to a second term, ...

The only reason we got a good second tax cut and a recovering economy was Bush was starting to feel that his re-election was in jeopardy. During the second term, he'll have no such pressure. My guess is we'll see tax increases and even more spending.

[rmmcdaniell]

The only reason we got a good second tax cut and a recovering economy was Bush was starting to feel that his re-election was in jeopardy. During the second term, he'll have no such pressure. My guess is we'll see tax increases and even more spending.

Exactly, then come 2008 we'll have Jeb as the anointed successor.

[Moonman62]

Jeb doesn't seem to be the vote buying, big government, borrow and spender that his brother is. I guess he's the black sheep of the family.

[Hank Rearden]

I won't vote for him. I hate Big Stupid Republican Government.

[meenie]

The idea that Bush needs a second term before his true conservative beliefs come to the surface is wishful thinking. He's a liberal, big government individual that favors power and control.

[Princeliberty]

Already seen that 1993 and 1994.

Lowest growth in Government post WWII
except for 1981 under Reagan!

Republicans united against the spending in
as a minorty in House and Senate were
able to stop most of it.

Because anyone really brings to light
the spending that is being pushed through
the public goes against so conservative-moderate
Democrats end up having to go against it too!.

[Princeliberty]

Right in fact look for him to get worse in a second
term when he really feels no need to do anything
to appease conservatives.

He'll really give us the finger then.

[Princeliberty]

And the public won't buy Jeb coming after George
so the Bushes will give us President Hillary Clinton
in January 2009!

[The Other Harry]

I don't think Bush realizes just how many of us are angry and voting Third Party. It's JOBS, borders, spending, expanding government, etc. Wake up, GW before it's too late.

It's getting pretty late. I started becoming frustrated with Bush when he agreed with Kennedy on the federal education bill.

I am actually considering voting for Dean, assuming he becomes the Rat nominee. There is something to be said for gridlock.

[mysterio]

I'm not buying the "lesser of two evils" argument. I'm voting my conscience from now on. I'm going Constitutionalist or libertarian this time around.

[The Other Harry]

I'm not buying the "lesser of two evils" argument. I'm voting my conscience from now on. I'm going Constitutionalist or libertarian this time around.

That's still one less vote for Bush. Maybe someday the Republican politicians will figure out that we actually do want a smaller government -- one that has some guts and feels more bound by the Constitition.

[Anti-Christ is Hillary]

There will NEVER be a Pres. Hillary. All of the Republicans, Conservatives and most Democrats I talk to HATE her. I believe turn out against her will be overwhelming and as a woman I do not want a woman as president now or ever. I don't think it's just me, I don't think the country is ready now or will be ready in 2008 for a woman as President. Especially at this dangerous time in history.

[cpst12]

I celebrated when Bush got elected, and celebrated even more when republicans took control of both houses...its been one disappointment after another since then and I won't be voting for Bush in 2004.

Republicans work better as a minority party when they do nothing but block what the democrats try to do...at least then they pretend to care about defecits, debt and huge out of control spending...

Let return the republicans to a minority party and do everyone a favor.

[doosee]

Let return the republicans to a minority party and do everyone a favor.

You just signed on today to post this. How about we return you to the DNC.

[RJCogburn]

You just signed on today to post this

I've been around a while. I don't think making the Repubs the minority is a good idea, but a change at the top, at least so far as domestic issues, would not be bad at all.

I don't see voting for the dem, but I'll not waste my vote on Bush again.(unless Hillary is the opponent.)

[doosee]

Overall the media is going to paint an ugly picture of what the W administration does whether it likes it or hates it. Federal outsourcing of functions is an area that gets no press yet it may go far in reducing federal dependency and waste. I have heard people poo pooing the drug costs for the new program, yet these same people who claim its peanuts then attack the GOP for passing it as big spending. It cant be both. I think the GOP just introduced the free market into Medicare and that is a huge win. Just my thoughts.

[cpst12]

>>I think the GOP just introduced the free market into Medicare and that is a huge win. Just my thoughts.

Yea, a huge win that will *only* cost a minimum of $400Billion dollars, and more likely will cost a few trillion dollars over the next 2 decades.

[cpst12]

>>You just signed on today to post this. How about we return you to the DNC.


What, you just make stuff up and hope nobody notices?

[gcruse]

Republicans united against the spending in
as a minorty in House and Senate were
able to stop most of it.

It was partly a bipartisan effort thanks probably to Newt .  The agreement was that any new spending bill had to have provisions to fund itself.  They agreed no new spending on existing revenues.  Either pay for it with new revenue, or don't pass it.
At any rate, it wasn't just a Republican thing.

[gcruse]

I do not want a woman as president now or ever...

Happily, Thatcherite Brits weren't so....bigoted?

[gcruse]

You just signed on today to post this. How about we return you to the DNC.

Fred Barnes is a Democrat now?

[Holly_P]

WANT TO CURB federal spending? Replace President Bush with a Democrat

Got a head ache? Whack yourself on the knee with a really big hammer.

[Beenliedto]

His surprise trip to Baghdad is still super cool, though.

Wonder how many taxpayer dollars it cost?

[Holly_P]

You just signed on today to post this

Huh?

doosee Since Aug 17, 1999

[doosee]

See Post 22 from cps. That is where he/she proposed returning Congress to the Dems. Perhaps it was sarcasm but I doubt it.

[Holly_P]

See Post 22 from cps. That is where he/she proposed returning Congress to the Dems. Perhaps it was sarcasm but I doubt it.

Ok, I see what you mean now. He's only been here a few weeks less than I have and I am in no position to cast aspersions on "newbies" myself. It sure sounds like liberal clap trap to me though.

[Princeliberty]

I talking about 93 and 94. They had no such
agreement on that.

Hillary's plan was not self-paying.

The bottom line reason Government grew so little
is thanks to the fact Democrats had everything
there was more of a real opposition to government
spending.

After Republicans took control of Congress
spending went up!
Then when Bush came in spending exploded.

[Moonman62]

Wonder how many taxpayer dollars it cost?

I think it was justified for the morale boost to our soldiers, their families, and our allies. Most of the resources he used we are paying for anyway, whether they get used or not.

[gcruse]

Hillary's plan was not self-paying.

 Did a member of Congress actually introduce her bill?
I don't remember.

[cpst12]

>>He's only been here a few weeks less than I have and I am in no position to cast aspersions on "newbies" myself. It sure sounds like liberal clap trap to me though.

My point was only 1/2 sarcasm...the fact of the matter is that when the republicans were in the minority they did a better job of slowing the growth and controling spending proposed by the democrats. Now with the republicans in power they are spending like crazy and the democrats only critize them for not spending enough (or on the right things).

While I am only half serious, putting the republicans bak in the minority would at least make sure somebody has their foot on the brakes...right now *nobody* does.

I guess now that republicans are in power, anyone that critizes the out-of-control spending automatically becomes a liberal?

[RWR8189]

As much as W has been a disappointment domestically, do you all trust a dim to fight the War on Terrorism?

[Holly_P]

While I am only half serious, putting the republicans bak in the minority would at least make sure somebody has their foot on the brakes

I guess now that republicans are in power, anyone that critizes the out-of-control spending automatically becomes a liberal

You don't have to be a liberal to suggest that you would rather the Republicans be the minority party but it helps.

See post 30 - That's NOT the solution and neither is putting democrats back in power.

[Princeliberty]

Oh yes and it failed in a huge way.

In fact Republican Senator Jeffords was a co-sponsor.