Republican Big Spenders

Newsmax.com ^ | Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2004 | Ralph R. Reiland

[AbsoluteJustice]

Know what is troubling and ordinary?

I don't see the normal freepers coming to the defense of Bush on this one or even commenting on it.

[FRgal4u]

I don't think the normal freepers can defend the reckless spendings in Washington. Bush has yet to veto a single bill. The best thing, next to a veto, now is a TOTAL SHUT DOWN of the govn. If Congress is in total shutdown mode, no new spending bills will pass. All the spendings, except those with automatic adjustments (like SS), will cap at the previous approved rate (ergo no increase). This can't be all bad, at least we don;t have to pay for a friggin rainforest in Iowa or a green-energy hooters' restaurant in Louisiana. The way the congress is spending our future, I wonder when will we find the next Seaworld in Death Valley, or a Tropical Fish aquarium in Alaska or a Polar Bear breeding home in Florida.

[Moonman62]

From the article you didn't read:

The numbers tell the story. The average annual real increases in domestic discretionary spending were 2.0 percent under Jimmy Carter, a minus 1.3 percent in the Reagan years, 4.0 percent with George H.W. Bush, 2.5 percent in the Clinton years, and 8.2 percent with George W. Bush.

[George W. Bush]

The article considerably understates the case.

More realistic figures, total budget over ten years, are much closer to $1 trillion a year. In this year's initial proposed budget, the discretionary spending was about $900 billion. So it does make some sense even if we assume that we're trying to jumpstart the economy now and will cut taxes in coming years at the time when the huge Pill Bill costs start to come in.

Expect to hear more about these different estimates from the White House budget office (by law operating by one set of estimates) and the congressional budget office (required to use its own figures) and from independent analysis.

The independent sources like Cato Institute are saying the real figures are much higher than either the WH or the CBO will admit publicly.

They're betting the farm on a giant ecomomic expansion. The stock market is giddy in that much of this excessive spending offers an opportunity for the smart money to clean up some of it. But so far, we're not seeing job growth in the numbers we need or an increasing productivity or efficiency to compete more effectively globally. But the wild deficit spending will impact on any recovery as we continue to borrow (not tax) the money needed to fund it.

The effects of further recovery from the recent recession will be limited by the amount of debt burden and competition for capital. And we'll probably see the Fed raise interest rates too. A wet blanket on the general euphoria on Wall Street.

Although it doesn't enter into much of the dialogue on the subject here at FR, this picture that I'm describing is the one that has GOP congressmen in a minor revolt over continuing to pile up debt on such a scale when the obvious returns are so limited to date.

[George W. Bush]

I don't see the normal freepers coming to the defense of Bush on this one or even commenting on it.

Maybe because Bush really is irrelevant to the budget?

It's not Bush. It's the Congress. Because the Constitution says so.

Go after the guys who are writing the hot checks, not the guy who asked them to do it. Or was your vote for Congress completely meaningless?

We have a political franchise. Exercise it.

[Moonman62]

And besides the little pork projects that make good headlines, there's the waste and inefficiency that accounts for several billion more.

[jjm2111]

If it weren't for 9/11 and the Terror War I probably wouldn't vote for W again. I still might not. Reckless spending always hurts the economy in the long run.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"It's not Bush. It's the Congress. Because the Constitution says so."

It is he who signs it....He can veto it can't he?

But he will not....

Plus it is a Republican driven House and Senate. Why don't they have some discretionary spending or at least exercise it?

If they pass it in both Houses then the Republicans are at fault. If it is signed as the budget then Bush is at fault. Noone else, Democrats cannot be faulted for this one, it is squarley on the shoulders of the Republicrats!

[AbsoluteJustice]

"If it weren't for 9/11 and the Terror War I probably wouldn't vote for W again. I still might not. Reckless spending always hurts the economy in the long run."

I agree....If this bill passes I WILL NOT vote for Bush, he has the power to veto this bill. If he does not then "The State of The Union Speech" was nothing more tham a blow-hard speech for the masses. Just sit back and say thank you for selling out your base!

[Ahban]

http://www.constitutionparty.com

[George W. Bush]

It is he who signs it....He can veto it can't he?

Well, yes. The intent is that he can ignore it and it passes by default. Signing it indicates his approval. Staging a Rose Garden signing with Congress indicates strong approval. Vetoing indicates opposition and requires the 2/3^rd majority to override.

This is the Founders' design. Essentially, the president is a check on the Congress. It's a little odd historically for him to be leading the charge for higher spending with both houses held by his own party.

But he will not....

No. Because to do so, he'd have to align with Daschle and Kennedy and Pelosi and the Dims in order to resist the conservatives' attempt to limit the discretionary spending.

It wouldn't look too good to veto his own party's budget bills while forming an alliance with the most liberal and hated elements of the enemy party, would it? Rove isn't stupid and will never let that happen.

We should expect that, given the conservative snarling over this budget, that Rove and congressional leaders will stage some puny pillow fight over this budget for the benefit of gullible GOP camp followers. So we might see some real 'rasslin' for the benefit of GOP sheeple. But conservatives need to watch the bottom line and insist on real cuts.

Rove is quite good at political theater and we shouldn't be taken in by smoke and mirrors. Watch that federal checkbook.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Politics is grand is it not?

:)

[George W. Bush]

Sure. (I'm just saying that to be agreeable for once.)

[The_Eaglet]

What's Next for Campaign Finance?-Daily Campaign Finance Reform Thread - Day 57