Posted on 05/08/2003 1:32:12 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
President Bush's plan to stimulate the economy and cut taxes is a good plan. However, he and his Republican colleagues who control the House and Senate have cut the legs out from under it by spending like there is no tomorrow.
The Republican Party traditionally has been the party of "less government," the party that represented fiscal restraint. For 40 long years, when the Democrats controlled Congress from 1954-1993, Republicans were the voice in the wilderness, railing against increased spending and soaring deficits.
In 1994, when Republicans finally got their chance to lead, they held the line for a year and a half and then gave up. When that happened, spending began going up at an alarming rate. "It's all because of Bill Clinton," they complained. "If only we had a Republican president in the White House, then things would change."
They finally got their wish and things changed all right. It's gotten worse, much worse. During Bush first three years in office, real non-defense discretionary outlays, adjusted for inflation, will rise 18 percent. This increase outpaces all recent presidents.
In February, Chris Edwards, director of fiscal policy at the CATO Institute, ran the numbers. Mr. Bush's budget for Fiscal Year 2004 called for an increase in discretionary outlays of 3.5 percent, which follows increases of 7.8 percent in FY 2003 and 13.1 percent in FY 2002.
However, the budget that Mr. Bush presented for FY 2004 is far from a done deal. Traditionally, the president's budget request is treated as a spending floor, not a ceiling. Also, the FY 2003 figures do not include that $70 billion defense supplemental and the supplemental bills that surely will follow before the close of the current fiscal year on October 1.
If you take out the increases in defense discretionary outlays – most of which can be justified – discretionary outlays will rise 3.2 percent in FY 2004, following increases of 7.9 percent in FY 2003 and 12.3 percent in FY 2002.
To be fair, the Senate was controlled by Democrats during Mr. Bush first two years in office. However, the House had just as much clout as the Senate when they went behind the closed doors of a conference committee to hash out the differences in the spending bills. Also, bear in mind, the lion's share of the FY 2003 budget was put off until this year when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress.
Republicans in the Senate are quick to point out that they don't have the votes to break a filibuster. However, budget bills are not subject to a filibuster. The truth is Bill Frist, the Senate's new majority leader, would not control his own members, who were busy cutting deals with their Democrat colleagues. They agreed to support a record number of pork-barrel projects totaling $22.5 billion.
Hardly the kind of behavior you would expect from Republicans with the economy sputtering, the stock market in the tank, a pending war in Iraq and the coming train wreck on elderly entitlement programs!
According the National Taxpayers Union Foundations, the Senate's "deficit Hawks" who initially trimmed the size of the president's tax cut from for $726 billion down to $350 billion are some of the biggest spenders in Congress.
Senators, who voted to uphold the president's tax cuts, had, in the previous Congress, sponsored or co-sponsored bills that – if enacted all at once – would increase federal spending by an average of $19.5 billion per year. In contrast, senators who voted to slash the tax cut in half (out of concern for the deficit) had sponsored an agenda that would raise spending $89.9 billion per year. They are hypocrites of the worst sort!
Unfortunately, most people simply don't keep tabs on these folks.
However, Mr. Bush has given those big spenders an easy target because he has not been the model of fiscal responsibility. Run the numbers in President Bush's current budget proposal. He plans to increase discretionary outlays from $791 billion in FY 2003 to $926 billion in FY 2008. That means he has proposed that an addition $135 billion in new spending be added to the federal budget in FY 2008. In contrast, his tax cuts that year would reduce federal revenues by just $50 billion (without accounting for the economic growth benefits).
The size of the proposed tax cut, which has been scaled back by the president from $750 billion to $550 billion over 10 years, is not a problem. It's spending by the members of the House, the Senate and, yes, this president that is the problem.
1 Corinthians 2
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
In case it's escaped the notice of the Great Conservative Deficit Hawks (tm), we happen to be at war. We didn't start it and we didn't want it, but we're in it. And we are compelled to spedn money to defend ourselves, especially after 8 years of cuts in the Defense budget by the Clintonista scum who were in charge previously.
Basically, the President AND Congress only gets to argue about how much is spent for about 1/3 of the total budget. They cannot affect entitlements (the other 2/3) and there's no will -- I repeat, NO WILL -- for any entitlement reform on the part of the President, the Congress, or the American electorate.
So what's Bush to do? He can submit a token budget cutting NPR funding and Americorps and some stupid liberal boondoggles that nibble at the margins of the budget. But fundamentally, he has very little flexibility. The big money numbers are in the entitlements and they are untouchable. So he decides to go "supply-side" and hope that tax cuts will induce enough economic activity to create a bigger cash flow to ease the budget deficit.
Maybe it'll work, maybe not. But one thing that I know won't work -- alleged "conservatives" whining about how much Bush is spending. Maybe they'd rather have AlGore running things right now.
Maybe you're right about how much impact can be made to the budget without touching entitlements. But we were PROMISED by congressional leadership and the white house that if we have a republican in the White House and congress lead by republicans, what the article is discussing would NOT be an issue. There were not caveats that 2/3 of the budget is untouchable. It was a promise that things could be done to minimize cost and government. The promise is what the root cause of the article is.
Lots of whining in this piece about "spending" but no specifics on exactly what we're spending it on. Chastain clearly points out the $$$ being spent are exclusive of defense spending. So what else is so necessary to increase spending?
Great Conservative Deficit Hawks
I was taught to be a Deficit Hawk by one Ronald Reagan. He preached and preached the deficit as being bad, unless it's for necessary defense. Well, defense is excluded in this analysis. But slowly we've turned from deficits being bad to "we've got to support those things necessary to make changes necessary to keep the economy running smoothly". Seems I used to hear that as a comeback by those on the other side of the aisle from Mr. Reagan.
The only thing I will add to this is the comment that the President is still governing with a slim majority in Congress, and drastic cuts would provoke a revolt from less conservative Republicans.
All in all, given that we are at war, I find the budget quite responsible. I realize some people want draconian cuts in non-military spending, but holding the line is about all that can be expected at this juncture.
And in case it has escaped you, joesbucks, the green-eyeshade people are not particularly viewed with favor by a large portion of the population. That is a hard fact, and until you can get more voters educated on the budget, the political pressure on Congress will be too much for our representatives to withstand.
Sorry to have to be the one to bring you the bad news. Now that you know this, what's your budget solution?
Chastain clearly points out the $$$ being spent are exclusive of defense spending. So what else is so necessary to increase spending?
Homeland Security (God, I hate that name!) -- that's bookkept separate from "Defense" categories.
I was taught to be a Deficit Hawk by one Ronald Reagan.
May his memory be blessed. But as I recall the history of the 1980's, The Gipper never let budget deficits bother him all that much. His attitude was one of the right priorities -- defense build-up to fight communism (after 4 years of Democrat weakness, a parallel here I think), tax cuts to stimulate growth (another parallel), and balance the budget (oops! Well, two out of three ain't bad!).
The problem with "deficit hawks" is that they have no real plan to lead us from where we are to where we want to be. It's all well and good to say "cut spending!" but what do you propose to cut? Your "stupid boondoggle" is my "important national program" and vice versa -- how do you get around that? And oh yes, we have a one-vote majority in a body in which one or two nitwits can tie it up indefinitely (I speak of course of the United States Senate).
OK, so all the Republicans in the Executive and the Congress are yutzes. What's your solution? What do you want to cut and what's your strategy to get it through the Congress?
I'm not familiar with that term. Can you amplify?
The only thing I will add to this is the comment that the President is still governing with a slim majority in Congress, and drastic cuts would provoke a revolt from less conservative Republicans.
This to you will be nit picky, but to me it goes with our calls for truth and honesty. Never once have we been told that a slim majority is an issue, that is unless something that upsets the grass rooters happens, THEN it's an issue.
I can never remember anytime during the campaigns hearing it's a "slim majority" that we can't live with. It's always been if we control congress and the White House, those things important to conservatives will be accomplished. Regional problems Becasue of population makeup) with people like Snowe, Chaffee and Voinovich are never discussed in general terms, UNLESS something fails to satisfy the grass rooters.
George H.W. Bush was Reagan's most significant mistake. Had he picked a conservative to be his VP we'd have had a conservative in the White House from '88 - '96 and perhaps thereafter. It would have been a huge improvement over the warmed over Rockefeller Republicanism that's now referred to as Compassionate Conservatism.
1. We're at war, so spending doesn't matter. Bush needs to be glued to his plasma TV screen all day and doesn't have time to watch the pissing away of our money. (This was added recently. What about the other two years?)
2. It's those damn Democrats. Uh, no, it's those damn Republicans.
3. Would you rather have [insert idiot liberal Demo here]? This is the biggest and most popular red herring argument there is. No, I wouldn't rather have some idiot liberal Demo in there, but from a spending perspective you wouldn't know the difference.
Let's face it, folks. Congress AND YOUR SOVEREIGN AND HERO GEORGE W. BUSH can't control the spending of our money which they confiscate too much of. Period.
PS = SUPPLY SIDE? Please name one suggestion, bill, policy or even pearl dropped from his mouth in the past three years that could be considered Supply Side.
On second thought, not "too bad" -- what's the phrase,... Oh yes: "Thank God!"
As far as "big spending" goes, there are some things that are controllable and some things that aren't. Federal spending for education happens to fall mostly in the latter category. Bush tried to make that black pit of spending more accountable, damn his eyes.
But do go on -- I love to hear the completely clueless chastize the "Man in the Arena."
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.