Has the President Gone on a "Spending Spree"?

TastyManatees.com ^ | 1/7/04 | Ryan

[TastyManatees]

Has the President Gone on a "Spending Spree"?

Only if you think that withdrawing from the war and surrendering the world to Osama bin Laden is a viable option.

A lot of conservatives have been on a tear lately (myself included). Every time you turn around, someone is screaming about government spending and the there are those who are more than happy to exploit the confusion surrounding spending issues to erode support for the President. The San Francisco Chronicle recently put out a hit piece attempting to spin the spending numbers in a way that makes the President seem like he's been making irresponsible requests for spending as compared to the previous Administration. There's just one problem, the Federal government has not been going on a bender, but fighting a war and refitting a military that was allowed to waste away for too long.

That's right, Federal defense spending has been increasing...now that we are at war. To get an accurate picture of the spending picture, you have to talk about discretionary spending over the past ten years or so and honestly analyze discretionary defense spending versus other types of spending.

The San Francisco Chronicle's latest backdoor attack on the Administration includes a handy-dandy breakdown of discretionary Federal spending Congress has approved in the past three years. A few facts are readily apparent from the info the Chronicle provides:

1. Overall discretionary spending from the last budget year of the previous Administration, has increased from around $664 billion in 2001 to $873 in 2004. That is an increase of approximately $209 billion in overall discretionary spending. The Chronicle tells us that the previous Administration's budgets increased by "only" $141 billion from 1994-2001.

2. The Bush Administration's discretionary defense spending increased from 2001's budget of $313 billion (minus $20 billion in money appropriated immediately after 9/11/01) to $492 billion budgeted for 2004. The difference amounts to approximately $199 billion dollars ($179 billion plus the $20 billion subtracted from 2001), or about 63%. In three years.

3. All other discretionary spending increased from the previous Administration's final 2001 budget of $331 billion to a whopping $381 billion budgeted for 2004. This difference amounts to approximately $50 billion, or 15%. Over three years.

4. The Chronicle has neglected to provide for comparison any defense spending numbers under the previous Administration. This immediately raised a red flag with me, because the Chronicle's implication is that the previous Administration somehow did a better job at keeping Federal spending in check.

Once one does a little background checking with the Congressional Budget Office, it becomes readily apparent how the previous Administration was able to keep spending increases down. No wonder the Chronicle was loathe to share discretionary defense spending figures for the eight years preceding 2001.

According to the CBO, from 1993 through 2001, discretionary defense spending increased from $292 billion in 1993 to $306 billion in 2001. That's about $14 billion dollars, or an astounding 5%! Over eight years. And numerous military engagements abroad. And repeated attacks by the same Al Qaeda that eventually attacked us on September 11.

In fact, if you look at the figures, discretionary defense spending was actually CUT REPEATEDLY by the previous administration from 1993-1999. Here is the breakdown as reported by the CBO:

1992 302.6
1993 $292.4 (last budget year of the first Bush Administration)
1994 $282.3
1995 $273.6
1996 $266.0
1997 $271.7
1998 $270.2
1999 $275.5
2000 $295.0
2001 $306.1

No wonder the Chronicle came up with low discretionary spending growth numbers for the previous administration. No wonder they were able to make the misleading implication that President Bush's budgets for the past two years have outstripped the previous Administration's spending. No wonder I don't trust these ideologues.

For eight years, the previous Administration used discretionary defense spending as a piggy bank to fund other discretionary spending. Major shortcomings began to become evident, but the threadbare military was allowed to continue in the same shape because there was no pressing national crisis or public outcry for men under arms.

That all changed when Islamic terrorists supported by enemy nations murdered thousands of Americans in a horrific surprise attack on a defenseless nation.

[TastyManatees]

Tasty Manatees

[TastyManatees]

Bump.

[Captain Kirk]

It isn't just the "liberals" who are saying it. It is also the folks at Cato and the Heritage Foundation. It is amusing, however, how the Bush-bots are trying to rationalize the actions of their big government hero.

[TastyManatees]

Couldn't bother to look at the spending figures I provided or to even drop into the CBO site and check the facts for yourself? Perhaps others who actually do take the time to consider the evidence may come to a different conclusion.

By the way, I've been called a lot worse things than "Bush-bot" by people a lot more impressive than yourself, Cap'n. In fact, I usually take it as a sign that I'm on the right track when the only response I get from those who disagree is childish name-calling.

Tasty Manatees

[Texas Federalist]

Take out the defense spending and Bush still doubles increase during Clinton's first term.

[TastyManatees]

You are correct. The increases in non-defense discretionary spending are not as bad as they could have been, considering some of the misguided portions of the attempt at "stimulus", but they do dwarf the increases in discretionary non-defense spending from 1993-1997.

When comparing these two figures, though, I would only caution that the economy of January of 2001 was very different from the economy of January of 1993 (through 1997). In 2001, we were entering recession, in 1993, we had just exited. Also, in 2001, we were about to experience an amazingly costly surprise attack that would affect discretionary domestic spending.

The main point that I would like to emphasize, though, is that when people decry profligate Administration spending, they are almost invariably referring to defense expenditures that must be incurred if we expect to achieve our military goals. The main increases in spending are in the area of defense, and they overshadow the increases in domestic spending. We cut military spending year after year, until we were faced with a war, which we are now trying to gear up for. We can go back to the days when we did not fund our military, but then we would live with the consequences in our current efforts, as well.

Tasty Manatees

[dead]

Has the President Gone on a "Spending Spree"?

He’s been on a spending spree since about 15 minutes into his term, and it's done nothing but accelerate since then.

What the hell, it's on our credit card.

[Texas Federalist]

I don't think anyone on this board would disagree with Bush's military spending increases. When myself and others on this board are talking about Bush's spending spree, we are talking about non-defense discretionary spending - which is out of control because of programs like the farm subsidy, Medicare entitlement, education bill, and the extension of the child tax credit to individuals not paying taxes.

[Hank Rearden]

So how does his latest vote-buying scam, "free" pills, help to kill terrorists?

What it kills is the economic prospects of hardworking, longsuffering taxpayers who are being screwed by Big Stupid Republican Government.

[TastyManatees]

>"When myself and others on this board are talking about Bush's spending spree, we are talking about non-defense discretionary spending."

Sure. Keep in mind, though, that when you see news reports designed to inflame conservatives against the President, they will invariably lump defense expenditures in with everything else to jack up the number.

Tasty Manatees

[The_Eaglet]

Either way, it's still too much, especially given the socialistic and unconstitutional programs which Bush authorized and in some cases, promoted himself.

[ppaul]

Lack of Vetoes puts Bush in Rare Presidential Company

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"The main point that I would like to emphasize, though, is that when people decry profligate Administration spending, they are almost invariably referring to defense expenditures that must be incurred if we expect to achieve our military goals."

Unfortunately that's not true. Maybe on Planet Kucinich, but here on FR there are many folks--myself included--who are profoundly disquieted by the ramp-up in things like DOE spending on W's watch, and now Medicare prescriptions.

Granted, W was forced to the center much as FDR was in WWII. Politics takes no wartime holidays. But still. I'd be a lot more receptive to your post if W had exercised any vetoes whatsoever, or proposed the elimination of even a single unconstitutional Federal bureaucracy or entitlement, such as Neal Boortz rags about in http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36466. Perhaps (perhaps) the restructuring that created the Department of Homeland Security might ultimately represent a streamlining, but meanwhile there's plenty (plenty!) of Federal fat that needs trimming. Perhaps, as the War on Terror proceeds, Bush will give the cause of limited government the executive-level attention it deserves. We can hope.

[TastyManatees]

I understand your frustration. Believe it or not, I find myself expressing the same thought on occasion. What's the point in getting a majority on the Hill and the White House unless you're going to do something worthwhile with it?

However, I would urge you to put yourself in his place. The War on Terror isn't just one aspect of his job, it is his job. Everything else is almost window dressing around what a Commander-in-Chief is hired to do.

I personally don't think the President would be doing himself or the country any favors by taking a slash and burn approach when he is counting on minimal support from some less shrill voices among the loyal opposition to give him the majority he needs to fight a war. The way I see it, you have to win the war first, then deal with the domestic issues. There is a time and place to propose eliminating the Department of Education, and it isn't when you have a 1 vote margin in the Senate and a pending appropriations bill that is absolutely, vitally central to success in an ongoing war. My guess is that the playing field could be dramatically different come next year, what with the changes coming in the Senate.

Anyways, that's just the way I see it.

Tasty Manatees

[Captain Kirk]

I never called you a Bush-bot. I only said that Bush-bots as the election approaches will try to excuse Dubay's shameless big government actions such as the massive 400 billion dollar socialization of prescription drugs (which you apparently support). Come to think of it, however, if you want to call yourself a Bush-bot, I certainly won't object.

[TastyManatees]

>"I never called you a Bush-bot."

Sorry, I was confused when you responded to the post with, "It is amusing, however, how the Bush-bots are trying to rationalize the actions of their big government hero." I didn't realize that you were simply referring to someone completely unrelated to the posting and the discussion who had not been mentioned, as yet...

...no, wait, you did mean to start some childish name-calling. It's just that you don't have the guts to now stand behind an uncalled-for and meaningless insult.

>"the massive 400 billion dollar socialization of prescription drugs (which you apparently support)."

Actually, I didn't mention Medicare (because it was compeltely unrelated to the analysis of discretionary spending), but thanks for the help in characterizing my own thoughts on the matter. From your lack of discussion of such vital issues, one could also infer that you wholeheartedly support the worship of Satan and the beating of wives. Shame on you for supporting such vile measures, sir!

[Captain Kirk]

Satan worshiper? LOL. You do have a sense of humor after all. I notice that you evaded addressing head on the big enchilada: Dubya's socialization of prescription drugs. It makes the your dissertation on "earmarks" trivial by comparision. Makes you pretty uncomfortable eh?

[LTCJ]

According to the CBO, from 1993 through 2001, discretionary defense spending increased from $292 billion in 1993 to $306 billion in 2001. That's about $14 billion dollars, or an astounding 5%!

Holy cripes in pajamas. Talk about cherry-picking statistics. I'm supposed to be soothed about administration leadership in government spending by an article quoting 5% increase in discretionary DEFENSE spending during an undeclaired war? Hello? Mr Rove, is that you?

Let's talk about NON-defense discretionary spending, shall we?

And that's NOT rainwater being poured down my leg.

[TastyManatees]

Not really, kid.

How much would our defense spending amount to if I employed the same extremely dishonest tactic the press (and you) are engaged in with regards to Medicare?

Seriously, if I use the misleading methodology that comes up with a $400 billion price tag for the recent Medicare bill to estimate future defense spending for the next ten or twenty years (discretionary only), the final figure comes to something like $4-8 TRILLION just for ten years (without even adjusting for NPV!)!

That certainly seems to dwarf the figure you seem to feel disproves that $400 billion of defense spending per year amounts to the great majority of new spending. If I assumed that you had actually read either the piece posted above or the spending figures it is commenting on, I would posit that you have an agenda here that has nothing to do with the actual level of overal Bush Adminsitration spending, and everything to do with the actual level of defense spending.

Tasty Manatees

[TastyManatees]

>"I'm supposed to be soothed about administration leadership in government spending by an article quoting 5% increase in discretionary DEFENSE spending during an undeclaired war?

Perhaps you weren't paying attention when war was declared on Spetember 11, 2001, but I can assure you that we certainly noticed the declaration here in Washington. If you feel that foregoing any spending and surrendering the world to Osama bin Laden's boys is your preferred option, please feel free to explain as well how you do plan on defending the national security of the United States.

If you had bothered to read the piece (I am serious), you would have noted that it did discuss non-defense discretionary spending. My guess, though, is that you are more concerned with non-defense, non-discretionary spending. "Entitlements" such as Social Security and Medicare fall under this category. See my above post for a quick discussion of that.