Posted on 08/01/2003 6:05:23 PM PDT by Harlequin
The Bush administration's newly released budget projections reveal an anticipated budget deficit of $450 billion for the current fiscal year, up another $151 billion since February. Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the fact is we have mounting deficits because George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the "Mother of All Big Spenders."
The new estimates show that, under Bush, total outlays will have risen $408 billion in just three years to $2.272 trillion: an enormous increase in federal spending of 22 percent. Administration officials privately admit that spending is too high. Yet they argue that deficits are appropriate in times of war and recession. So, is it true that the war on terrorism has resulted in an increase in defense spending? Yes. And, is it also true that a slow economy has meant a decreased stream of tax revenues to pay for government? Yes again.
But the real truth is that national defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.
Now, most rational people would cut back on their spending if they knew their income was going to be reduced in the near future. Any smart company would look to cut costs should the business climate take a turn for the worse. But the administration has been free spending into the face of a recessionary economy from day one without making any serious attempt to reduce costs.
The White House spinmeisters insist that we keep the size of the deficit "in perspective." Sure it's appropriate that the budget deficit should be measured against the relative size of the economy. Today, the projected budget deficit represents 4.2 percent of the nation's GDP. Thus the folks in the Bush administration pat themselves on the back while they remind us that in the 1980s the economy handled deficits of 6 percent. So what? Apparently this administration seems to think that achieving low standards instead of the lowest is supposed to be comforting.
That the nation's budgetary situation continues to deteriorate is because the administration's fiscal policy has been decidedly more about politics than policy. Even the tax cuts, which happened to be good policy, were still political in nature considering their appeal to the Republican's conservative base. At the same time, the politicos running the Bush reelection machine have consistently tried to placate or silence the liberals and special interests by throwing money at their every whim and desire. In mathematical terms, the administration calculates that satiated conservatives plus silenced liberals equals reelection.
How else can one explain the administration publishing a glossy report criticizing farm programs and then proceeding to sign a farm bill that expands those same programs? How else can one explain the administration acknowledging that entitlements are going to bankrupt the nation if left unreformed yet pushing the largest historical expansion in Medicare one year before the election? Such blatant political maneuvering can only be described as Clintonian.
But perhaps we are being unfair to former President Clinton. After all, in inflation-adjusted terms, Clinton had overseen a total spending increase of only 3.5 percent at the same point in his administration. More importantly, after his first three years in office, non-defense discretionary spending actually went down by 0.7 percent. This is contrasted by Bush's three-year total spending increase of 15.6 percent and a 20.8 percent explosion in non-defense discretionary spending.
Sadly, the Bush administration has consistently sacrificed sound policy to the god of political expediency. From farm subsidies to Medicare expansion, purchasing reelection votes has consistently trumped principle. In fact, what we have now is a president who spends like Carter and panders like Clinton. Our only hope is that the exploding deficit will finally cause the administration to get serious about controlling spending.
I'm fine with that.
Okay, but not all the things he has done are good.
What is the problem with recognizing the things that have been done that are not good? How can we get better results if we ignore them?
The 9/11 attacks, the War On Terror, and the recession Bush inherited are the primary factors in creating the deficit; not Bush's proposed increased spending outside of these problems.
What would these supposed "hawks" have the government do: not spend money--even if that means spending more than it is taking in--on responding to 9/11, the Global Threat of Terrorism and the dip in business activity? That would be literal and political suicide. In short, it would be stupid.
This President is doing a fine job, despite the handwringing at CATO and among others here.
I know that recognizing the impact of a standing war might distract from your Bush is doing nothing whine but thats reality. The President, unlike some talking heads at CATO, has a lot on his plate.
From the Office of Management and Budget:
The 2004 Budget was transmitted to Congress on February 3, 2003 and covers the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2003.
BTW, these figures do not include the prescription drug entitlement currently pending in conference committee - the same entitlement Bush demanded during his press conference yesterday that the Congress finalize and send for signature. The actual 2004 budget spending expansion will prove far higher...
Yes, I do. And how isn't it?
And the adults will elect the Republican president that lead us into our socialist downfall.
A lot of things may happen between now and then - and I hope we have a better choice than we did last election -- An election between two BOYS who were dressed up in their father’s clothes. Neither one of them made it on their own. Bush wasn't as bad as Gore - but as a businessman I KNOW there is better talent in this country than GWB.
Give me someone who is just 60% of Reagan!!
( Sadly, I would put GWB at 5%)
Education bill, farm bill, Medicare bill......
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.