Bush Budget Will Make Him the Biggest Spender in Decades

Cato ^ | February 3, 2003 | Cato Institute

[JURB]

Bush Budget Will Make Him the Biggest Spender in Decades
Bush proposes nearly $100 billion more in non-defense discretionary spending than Clinton

WASHINGTON -- Cato Institute Director of Fiscal Policy Chris Edwards released the following statement in response to President Bush's fiscal 2004 budget:

The Bush administration's fiscal 2004 budget shows an admirable reform spirit in its pro-growth tax cut proposals, support for private Social Security accounts, and government management initiatives such as competitive sourcing. But the administration has failed to tackle the serious overspending problem in the discretionary budget.

Indeed, based on his first three budgets, President Bush is the biggest spending president in decades. For FY2004, discretionary outlays will rise 3.5 percent, which follows increases of 7.8 percent in FY2003 and 13.1 percent in FY2002. Non-defense discretionary outlays will rise 3.2 percent in FY2004 following increases of 7.9 percent in FY2003 and 12.3 percent in FY2002.

Rather than spending increases, the return to deficits and the coming cost explosion in elderly entitlement programs means that discretionary spending should be immediately frozen and major cuts identified. The administration has backed large increases in the defense budget - from $306 billion in FY2001 to $390 billion in FY2004. Yet it has not offset those increases with an aggressive plan to reform non-defense spending by major program terminations, privatization, and moving functions such as education back to the states.

The following budget data highlight the continuing overspending problem in the federal government:

• The biggest spending administration in decades. With Bush's budget plan for FY2004, real non-defense discretionary outlays will rise 18.0 percent in his first three years in office (FY2002-FY2004). That growth far exceeds the first three years of any recent presidential term, including Ronald Reagan's first term (-13.5 percent), Reagan's second term (-3.2 percent), George H. Bush's term (11.6 percent), Bill Clinton's first term (-0.7 percent), and Clinton's second term (8.2 percent). When Reagan came to office and pursued a large defense build-up, he essentially froze non-defense discretionary outlays, which were $150 billion in FY1981 and just $151 billion three years later in FY1984 (in current dollars).

• A spending freeze would eliminate the deficit. The FY2004 budget would increase discretionary outlays from $791 billion in FY2003 to $926 billion by FY2008. If, instead, discretionary outlays were frozen at the FY2003 level, the deficit would plunge to just $55 billion by FY2008. The budget could be balanced even more quickly with reforms to cut rapidly growing entitlement costs. If total outlays were frozen at the FY2003 level, the budget would essentially be balanced in just two years (by FY2005).

• Spending increases dwarf proposed tax cuts. The administration proposes to increase total federal outlays by $89 billion in FY2004, $114 billion in FY2005, and more than $100 billion each year thereafter. As spending increases accumulate, annual outlays are expected to be $571 billion greater in FY2008 than in FY2003. By contrast, the tax cuts in the administration's growth package have a tiny effect on future budgets. By FY2008, the Bush growth package tax cuts would reduce federal revenues by just $50 billion annually in FY2008.

• Only 2 of 21 major departments and agencies are cut. Only 2 of the 21 major federal departments - Justice and Labor -- would receive an actual cut in discretionary budget authority in FY2004. While most departments receive small increases this year, many have had substantial growth in recent years. For example, the Department of Education budget has jumped from $40.1 billion in FY2001 to $53.1 billion in FY2004. During the same period, the Health and Human Services budget increased from $54.2 billion to $66.2 billion, State and International Assistance from $20.4 billion to $27.4 billion, and Veterans Affairs from $22.4 billion to $28.1 billion.

• Almost $400 billion for state and local governments. State officials are demanding a federal government bailout to make up for their poor fiscal management. Yet the budget shows that total federal grants-in-aid to state and local governments increased from $285 billion in FY2000 to $384 billion in FY2003. The administration has resisted as large a bailout as states want, but grants are still expected to rise to $399 billion in FY2004.

• Bush vs. Clinton for FY2004. When former President Clinton introduced his FY2000 budget, he proposed that non-defense discretionary spending for FY2004 should be $335 billion, as shown in Figure 1. President Bush is now proposing that non-defense discretionary outlays rise to $429 billion in FY2004, or almost $100 billion greater than Clinton's original plan. The sad fact is that the administration and Congress do not adhere to out-year budget plans, as they always spend far more than originally proposed. Unless the Bush administration pursues major program cuts and terminations, its 2.3 percent proposed annual average growth in non-defense discretionary outlays (FY2004-FY2008) is very optimistic.

  
  Source: Cato Institute based on Budget of the U.S. Government, various years.

[Commander8]

The "conservative Republican." president will be the biggest spender since LBJ.

Howard Phillips in '04 is looking better and better to me everyday.

[Phantom Lord]

Bush is no conservative when it comes to reducing the size, scope, power, and influence of the Imperial Federal Government.

Has Bush proposed the elimination of a single government department or program? Has he proposed reducing the budget, in acutal dollars, of any department or program?

[Karsus]

No it is not. We are talking about 2,230,000,000 Dollars for ONE YEAR. That doesn't fit my definiton of reasonable, and if a DEM had even suggested such a budget the roar from the GOP would have been loud enough to make people deaf.

[JURB]

No amount of increased spending will ever be enough for the left (especially when proposed by a Republican president), I would just like to see some fiscal restraint for once. The fact is, as stated in the article, real non-defense discretionary spending is increasing at a higher rate than even under Clinton and Bush Sr. Reagan, God bless him, froze spending.

[libertyman]

....& I thought the G.O.P. was an opponent of big government. Yeah, right, that's just another lie & a half----to paraphrase a previous President, it "all depends on what the definition if BIG is".

[Blood of Tyrants]

No, no, no. Bush is a compassionate conservative. That means that he isn't afraid to spend whatever it takes to make the Rats happy.

[Sgt_Schultze]

No it is not. We are talking about 2,230,000,000 Dollars for ONE YEAR.

Actually, the number you were trying to write is $2,230,000,000,000 (two TRILLION dollars)

If the government had spent $1 million per second, every minute, every day of every year since the year 0, it wouldn't have even spent $1 Trillion dollars - cumulatively - yet.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

bump

[Crossbow Eel]

Reagan average a 4% discretionary spending rate over his 8 years and Bush II's discretionary spending in FY2004 will rise 3.5 percent !

I guess Reagan was a sell out too?

[Krafty123]

not quite...3600sec/hour*24hours/day*365* 2003 yrs* $1000000 = $63,166,608,000,000,000; or more than $63 QUADRILLION. You are WAY off...

[JURB]

It is ~$35 dollars a second since the birth of Christ (give or take). Let's see, it has taken me about 50 seconds to type this message -- that's equivalent to $1750 dollars.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Pardon my Oops! Leave it to me to correct a math error and make a huge (minor) infraction myself.

[Clemenza]

At least on fiscal issues, you were right that GWB would become like our Governor, George "Big Spenda" Pataki.

[Jesse]

Bush is not a conservative. He is the poster boy for RINO. Yes, he is increasing defense spending, but who would not?

Hypocritical Bush bot butt boys who support this travesty forget about rule of law...just like the Clintonites did. They have a hero-worship fetish even as Bush and the NEW!GOP is spending money faster than it can be printed.

[MatthewViti]

Moderates have never accomplished anything. How bout payin down the debt Bush instead of giving 15 Billion to Africa?

[Princeliberty]

But just wait till the Republicans control
the White House and both Chambers of Congress!

And now we know they will go on a huge expansion
of Government focused on helping big business
supporters.

Also, Bush not pushing through cloning ban
even while with the support of New Jersey Republicans
New Jersey about to legalize cloning.
Bush just playing a game on that.

Bush not protecting the borders even after 9-11.
Bush totally pro-Red China.
Bush one the worst Presidents in history.
The worse Republican President ever.

[Capitalism2003]

The 2.3 trillion dollar budget includes 700 BILLION IN TAX CUTS PEOPLE!!! He had to include the tax reductions as an "expense" in the budget...by law, that's just how they do things. Subtract 680 billion..or whatever the exact amount of tax cuts is and THEN you have the actual amount being spent.