Skip to comments.President Bush's Budget Predicts Rising Social Spending, Less Defense Spending
Posted on 12/20/2005 6:23:36 AM PST by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888
One of the overlooked stories of President Bush's Budget is what the President's focus is in the near-term future by his budget projection out to the year 2010.
When President Bush submitted his Budget this year for Fiscal Year 2006, he also was required to submit projections four years out. It is the trend of the major categories (called "Superfunctions") which is both the most important and also the most shocking.
"Human Resources" is the broadest measure of social welfare. It is also the largest expense in the USA's budget. For Fiscal Year 2006, the projection is 65.3 cents of very dollar going toward Human Resources. However, the shocking trend is President Bush has the figure rising to 67.2 cents of every dollar for 2010.
"Defense" is the #2 expense in the budget. This is where the alarm bells go off. For Fiscal Year 2006, President Bush has Defense at 17.4 cents of every dollar, but by 2010, he has that REDUCED to 16.7 cents of every dollar.
Note how the long-term percentages have trended. In JFK's final budget, he had Human Resources at just 29.8 cents of every dollar and JFK had Defense at 46.2 cents of every dollar.
Our security threats are growing, WMDs are proliferating, lunatics with nuclear weapons and long range missiles (or soon to be) control Iran and North Korea, and China's is growing faster than the USA in GDP growth, and their military growth is also rising faster than the USA's. All this, yet President Bush has a declining percentage of total spending going toward Defense.
How many children of illegal aliens will be in the USA by 2010? The birthrate of illegal aliens (and of nontaxpayers as a whole) dwarfs the birthrate of taxpayers. The social welfare spending, including new programs Bush initiated like free downpayments for homes, and global welfare like the Millenium Fund, seem to be the trend for the future in President Bush's vision.
The question we all must ask is where does the social welfare budget stop? From JFK's 29.8% to George Bush's 2010 projection of 67.2%, we have witnessed in our lifetimes the beginning of what many call the "welfare state".
Can we defend our nation at 70% of every dollar going toward welfare? If the trend remains unbroken, what about when it hits 80% of every dollar? The "subtle" 2% rise in welfare spending by 2010, out of a projected $3 TRILLION budget is a lot of money and a significant exacerbation of an already sickly trend.
All the debates over the last ten years about the growing welfare state were rooted in fact for those complaining about the ugly trend in rising welfare. Being that President Bush projects the trend to continue, and being the Defense portion of the budget declines as threats abroad rise, the debate in the coming years is sure to get even more heated, and the theat to America as we once knew her even more gravely apparent.
NOTE: "welfare" as mentioned in the body of the article is not just "welfare" as the official welfare programs are. "Welfare" is as broad a term as the funtion "Human Resources" is, covering everything from job trainng, grants to school, free housing, new programs like free downpayment for homes, Medicaid, and many others. Yes, the trends are very alarming from both a defense of this nation angle (and the ability to afford to do that), and the growing state of socialism in the USA.
"Compassionate" Conservatism is nothing more than socialism. GWB may be the biggest socialist president this country has ever had.
"GWB may be the biggest socialist president this country has ever had."
When you factor in his insidious Medicare increases, statistically, he IS the biggest socialist.
What should concern us all the most is the lack of focus on the USA and the citizens of this nation. I wish we were more isolationist and more nationalistic. That would slash the global welfare spending and increase our national security. Domestically, we must reverse the welfare and make people use the opportunities we give them, or the USA as a whole will go the route of California--possible bankrptcy.
Actually, with the beginning of the Baby Boom retiring and starting S.S., I'm surprised it's not a bigger increase in "Human Resource" spending.
In addition, you must factor in the global welfare and the cancelation of foreign debt, both of which shold show President Bush to be the biggest of all time.
What about the future? How can this nation survive with these unbroken trends in rising welfare and lower Defense? China does not have to go to war to take over America. All she has to do is wait and sweep up the ashes, shoudl these dangerous trends not be reversed.
Do we honestly think RAT Hillary Clinton in 2009 will reverse these trends? That is even more alarming.
Agreed. We have to remember President Bush and Congress told us the Prescription Drug Bill would cost $400 BILLION, and then the micro-second the ink dried on the signature by Bush, it was raised to over $1 TRILLION! This coul dbe a lowball figure also.
You are very correct. There will be a MASSIVE increase in welfare with Medicare and Social Security when the boomers retire. Also, don't forget the drop in tax revenue! The baby boomers are the largest taxpayers in the nation. Revenue could plunge when they retire.
"Agreed. We have to remember President Bush and Congress told us the Prescription Drug Bill would cost $400 BILLION, and then the micro-second the ink dried on the signature by Bush, it was raised to over $1 TRILLION! This coul dbe a lowball figure also."
Not only did Bush tell us this $400 Billion lie, but he then threatened to fire the guy who told him that the figure was probably closer to $800 billion!! Of course, that guy was right...
I've said this before here (and been attacked for it), but JFK was actually further to the right than GWB.
My point isn't to attack Bush in particular. Its that the country has been steadily drifting to the left. Its so insiduous that most people who call themselves "conservatives" don't even notice it.
"That would slash the global welfare spending.."
Actually our "global" welfare spending isn't all that huge as a percentage. Its really our "local" welfare spending (i.e. money we give back to various groups of Americans in various ways) that's the problem.
I'm afraid this is not going to change. Its a matter of politics. Its too easy for politicains to buy votes with someone elses money - no mattter if there's an R or a D after their name. Look at Bush and Katrina.
"Do we honestly think RAT Hillary Clinton in 2009 will reverse these trends? That is even more alarming."
Of course not. But what even more troubling to me is that we can't even assume a Republican will reverse these trends either.
No doubt JFK was more to the right than GWB. That is not even debateable. Heck, the OMB figures are jst one of many ways to prove that. Considering JFK's reaction to the Cuban missile crisis, JFK surely would not allow an outright invasion of America by Mexico to take place if he were president today.
Anybody who denies that Bush is to the left of JFK just is not debating in an honest manner.
It is always fun to watch the great theorists ruminate. They love to accuse the president and use words they don't even know the meaning of to do so.
Those who know that Bush is not to the left of JFK are familiar with the history of the latter and are not intoxicated by wild rhetoric.
That was an ugly and sick response to Katrina. There was no comon sense applied, just a sick throw money at political correctness, like the $2000 debit cards to welfare groupoies who got everything free in the first place. Talk to any FR member with a relative who worked in a retail store in that area and they will tell you the luxury items that were purchased with those debit cards. That was a very black mark on president Bush's record. The BILLIONS being spent on the levee system is even worse, considering the Orleans Levee District was responsbile for the deterioration. An honest aproach would have been to have a full, indepent analysis done on the feasibility of various rebuilding phases of NO (go or no go). That was not done. When you spend megab-billions without a feasability study, it is just another example showing you are correct, money is thrown out there to buy votes and appease the Marxists in the press.
This alarming trend will prove fatal to the survival of the United States. We simply can't keep this trend of rising social spending, declining military spending in place and hope to survive.
What words we don't knwo meaning about?
"Compassionate" Conservatism is nothing more than socialism. GWB may be the biggest socialist president this country has ever had.
Note to gop faithful: "you've been had."
History is proven with facts, and the facts show you are dead wrong.
It is interesting in that this article has FACTS in it. It is also interesting that your critique is pure OPINION.
Facts trump opinion.
Great. Let's work with this. Past spending is reality. Budget projections are opinion. Let me know if we're not still together. When the third party idiots got Clinton elected in '92, defense was about 20% of spending. Clinton got it down to about 15%. Every year since '01 GW Bush has been increasing the percent of total budget spending on defense. Most spending increases have been for defense.
Let's not sucker gullible freepers into some 3rd party crap that gets Hillary in power. Maybe sometime later when we're not at war, but not now.
Socialism is the first of the vocabulary building. It ain't just a welfare state.
Accusations against the President which are nothing more than wild and inflammatory rhetoric are useless.
You are apparently unaware that much of the electorate must be bought off in order to maintain national security.
The interpretations placed upon the meaning of facts is where you go off the deep end.
You need not fear these third party whackaloons are going to influence any but the most inexperienced. Most freepers see them for what they are - the Perpetually Pissed Off and know they have little bearing on anything. Perot was a anomaly.
Thanks-- I keep needing to be reminded that just because the bonkers crowd is so noisy doesn't mean that there are very many of them.
We are still not together. You are very wrong.
The budget is not done by chatting across the fireplace with a cup of coffee. Once Bush put his general ideas into a framework, number crunchers added to the data input with regression analysis and other trend fitting methods. You are way off target stating that the budget is opinion. Acturaries gave input on Medicare and SS, among others, and the math wizzards inputted data for analysis of variance and regression input, etc. You are light years off with that comment.
Most spending increases have been for defense.
Bush's first budget had Defense at 17.3%. Bush's projection out to 2010 has Defense at just 16.7%. That is a DECLINE!
Welfare (Superfunction HR) shows a INCREASE from 65.5% in Bush's first budget out to 67.2% at 2010.
FACTS prove you wrong.
As to the raw dollar increases we have seen in Superfunction Defense post 9/11, that money is not going to Defense that increases our national security as much (R&D, Procurement, etc.), but to logistics, troop rotation, admin, pay, benefits, the cost of war, etc.
Indeed, there are major cuts coming in the F-35 and/or F-22, the DD(X), and other weapon systems in order to pay for the rising welfare costs.
You are wrong on all counts.
Source: Jane's Defence Weekly (re military programs)
Source: OMB (re budget data)
What words don't we know the meaning about?
You have seen the facts, and like a Democrat, you whine with opinion.
Facts trump opinion.
Why are you always wrong?
Facts are facts--don't you read the facts before you post? Do you choose to simply ignore the facts?
In FY 2004, Bush had Defense at 19.9%. In FY 2005, that DECLINED to 18.8%.
You are wrong--you failed to check the facts for 2004 to 2005.
In FY 2006, the current budget, Defense is at 17.4%. The previous year FY 2005, it was at 18.8%.
You are wrong again (and again)--you failed to check the FACTS for 2005 to 2006.
FY 2007 is a decline from 2006. Again, you are wrong.
FY 2010 is a decline from FY 2009. Again and again you are wrong.
Why do you and your friend keep stating things that are FACTUALLY wrong?
I call them the <1%ers. In other words they support candidates which can only get less than that percentage of the vote. They blare their principles but seem unaware that in a representative republic those principles never are achievable unless they can get a far greater slice of the population to vote their way than they do.
Inevitably they support the most lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe who have no appeal to the sensible.
If HR costs went from 65.5 to 67.2 in 9 yrs that means it increased at a rate of 0.2% per year. That means they are stagnent certainly not growing to any degree. Hence Bush has put a stop to the growth in that segment of the budget completely different from your wild rhetoric.
Defense spending have definitely increased since the first budget and the 2010 figure assumes that it can be cut after the war in Iraq is finished. There is another 100 billion for that not even IN the budget for this year.
Been done in #20.
You're being very polite --other words came to my mind. They love to dig out projections (read: wild ass guesses) and treat them as fact. We try politely to invite them back to Planet Earth but they just keep hammering on these goofy doom'n'gloom projections.
I'd be disappointed on how they're always declaring an emergency --like, what do we do when there actually is an emergency? The answer is simple: continue to run things by working with each other while we get caretakers for them.
That is not "stagnent" [sic}. Stagnant??? You think a swing of $120 BILLION is stagnant? We are having trouble now funding the military. The Office of the President is asking the Pentagon not to come up with new creative R&D, but the focus is "come up with BILLIONS in cuts--find programs to cut." If we are having trouble funding our defense now, another $120 BILLION swing is not going to help matters, now is it.
You do not read carefully. I already explained to you that money toward Defense is not necessarily money toward R&D and procurement. Too much of our "increase" (raw dollars, not inflation adjusted) is going toward admin, logistics, pay, bennies, troop rotation, etc.
You are in denial. You are denying facts. I bet you were a strong supporter of Harriet Miers when Bush chose her, correct? I bet you were. You are saying the Office of Management and Budget figures are wrong and you are right. I bet you said Ann Coulter was crazy or a traitor when she criticized the Miers pick. I bet you said Micheele Malking was crazy or a turncoat when she said the same. I bet you said Krauthammer, Noonan, Will and all the rest of the conservative commentators were wrong when they criticized Bush.
I know your type -- you will deny facts just to defend the "Letter R". Too bad. You would gain more for the conservative cause if you would be rational. What a waste of activist time on your part.
A two percent change in ten years is stagnant. If your raise was two percent in ten yrs you would believe that to be stagnant. For all practical purposes it is the same as when Bush took office contrary to your deceptive claims.
Why are you surprised that during active WARTIME not as much is spent in R and D and more on activities which contribute directly and immediately to military actions? Who would think anything would be different in such a case?
More money is being spent on Defense today than was the case when Bush took office. Projections for the future are based upon certain assumptions which may or may not be verified.
While I do not know what Harriet Miers has to do with this issue I did support the President and had faith in his decision. I certainly did not join the Character Assassination Gang here which used every underhanded and low blow it could to destroy her. Such tactics I leave to the RATS. Ann Coulter looked like an ass but she is not particularly convincing in many cases anyway particularly with Justice Roberts and Miers. She had no real criticism just nasty remarks. Michele gets a little hysterical too but she was not nasty. Nor were any of the others.
I said nothing about OMB being wrong merely pointed out the inaccurate interpretation you put on the numbers. None of which justify your going off the deep end.
Those attacking the GOP today are merely doing the RATS' work for them hence I will not join them or you in spreading erroneous claims.
The Perpetually Pissed Off, Chicken Littles, Doomsday Divas there are many names for them.
You and I have different ways of looking at things. I see 2004 spending as having happened and having actual amounts recorded. I've also seen figures for 2005 and 2006 with asterisks (*) that denote "estimates". Like I said, "Past spending is reality. Budget projections are opinion." Like you said: "Facts trump opinion."
I need a favor-- do you think you might be able to tone down all the shouting (capitalization, bold face type, etc.,). I worry that you might hyperventilate and fall over and break something.
I've been thinking that the right wing bush-bashers may (rwbb) be more of a force than we're giving them credit for. In a lot of polls where the headline is something like 75% now hate Bush -- the fine print at the bottom is usually "and 99.99% hate the Democrats."
The way I figure it is that the rwbb's must be up about 25%.
You must assume they hate the RATS for that conclusion to be accurate. I don't since they do their work for them from within.
A) FY 2002 to FY 2010 is not ten years.
B) 2% every ten years (using your false example), puts you at 6% over 30 years. 6% of a $3 TRILLION budget is $180 billion. NOTE: $3 TRILLION is just 2010 dollars. It will be far, far more than $3 TRILLION in 30 years, and so far greater than $180 BILLION. Should the trend of a 2% rise continue, the USA would be unable to defend herself, being that we are getting close to that now, with all the requests to cut the military budget to pay for the social welfare budget.
C) The basic theme of this article is the trending. President Bush submitted a budget out to 2010 that continues the trends of a rising percentage of total spending going toward welfare and a smaller percentage of total spending going toward Defense. It would have helped the core constituency to see President Bush showing a reduction in the growth of the welfare state and a greater dedication to the defense of America, but President Bush decided to continue the trends of more welfare, less Defense.
Those facts are in the budget, which is submitted by the President, which bears the "Office of the President" on page 1, and so are facts from President Bush himself, which you arnd your pal are in denial about.
When you fight facts with opinion, it makes for a lopsided debate. It would be far better to discuss the facts and what to do about it, than sitting there trying to deny FACTS. I would make for a far better discussion and debate, and it just may help make the Republican officials who peek in take notice that the troops in the field don't like the facts they see.
It does not serve you or your pal well to deny facts. True conservatives are fighting like mad to see some hope that the dangerous trends reverse. We all know we need this. The nation needs it for its survival as a free, non-statist nation. We did not get that ray of hope in President Bush's budget, just more projections of the continued growth of the welfare state.
You spoke of the numbers at the beginning of Bush's presidency which was 2001. 01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,10 gee that is TEN years. The increase in social spending is the LOWEST in decades perhaps ever contrary to your hysterical misinterpretation.
And you are also deluded if you believe the US cannot defend itself. Some of our enemies made the same miscalculation.
You are also not including defense requests made after budget projections were established. The 100 billion just submitted to Congress is such an example which you must ignore because it destroys your lame argument. Bush has, contrary to your false claim, pretty much stopped increases in social spending and has spent more on defense. And trying to dismiss it by claiming it isn't the RIGHT kind of spending will fool no one.
Nor do you have any access to a "core" constiuency which voted Bush being far more likely to have been among those whining that Bush was annointed by the Country Club leadership. It is unlikely to find you supporting anything the GOP or the President does or says far from being a "true" conservative I doubt you even voted for the guy.
Maybe someday you will realize that a budget projection five years out is about as far from a "fact" as you can get. Why don't you check one from ten years back and tell me how "factual" that one was? LoL.
You never know the facts.
Why don't you ever know the facts? The very first budget Bush submitted was the FY 2002 budget.
You were wrong on the ten year comment, as I pointed out.
You just never know the facts.
Bush's presidency began in 2001. 2010 is ten years later.
A two percent change in ten years is negligible and marks an drastic decline in the rate of increase. Like it or not the numbers do not support your hysterics.
You did not read post #40. You fail to read and comprehend, apparently.
The first budget Bush submitted was the FY 2002 budget. For the THIRD time, you are wrong about ten years. Can you count to ten? It was NOT ten years.
FY 2002 started in 2001. FY 2010 ends in 2010.
Look, if you would just stop fighting and listen, you would learn something. Scumbag submitted the 2001 budget. Bush's first budget was the 2002 budget. Thus, Bush has submitted five budgets--FIVE budgets. FY 2006 is the current budget Bush submitted in the spring. This FY 2006 budget has projections out to 2010. 2002 thru 2010 is nine years (NINE), nine years, not ten years.
You have a problem with not accepting what others tell you when they quote facts. You argue with opinion, and then have a hard time when somebody debates with facts. You should refute facts with other facts, not opinion and falsehoods.
In your future debates on Free Republic with other members, remember this--the Fiscal Year Budget submitted is always one year ahead of calendar year. Bush was elected in 2000, and in the spring of 2001, he submitted his first budget. This first budget was thus the FY 2002 budget. Scumbag's last budget was submitted in the spring of 2000 (the FY 2001 budget).
This should clarify this for you and allow you to understand this, since you did not know that the FY budgets are one year ahead of the calendar year when submitted.
Donner Party "Conservatives"