Riggo-toni Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 (Note: I know there was a previous thread about blind party loyalty. Let me show my true colors here. I grew up in a Republican househould, the grandson of a Republican Senator, and I left the Republican party to become a Libertarian because of the first Bush administration letting government get out of control. Looks like W. is following in his daddy's footsteps, though I really blame this first and foremost on the Republican congress, which has completely lost direction after doing an outstanding job in the mid-90s. Sadly, neither party is interested in reducing the size of government anymore.) President Bush: Biggest Spender in Decades President Bush is spending so much tax money so fast that he makes former President Clinton -- and other big-spending big-government presidents of decades past -- look downright frugal. And it’s not just because of increases in war spending. Bush is shoveling out far more tax dollars for non-defense purposes than Clinton, too. So reports Chris Edwards, director of fiscal policy for the Cato Institute: “ased on his first three budgets, President Bush is the biggest spending president in decades. For Fiscal Year 2004, 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… “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)…. “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….” And don’t count on the Bush proposed tax cuts to help. Edwards notes that Bush’s proposed spending dwarfs his 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.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 I agree. So what should we cut out? I say start with the 15 billion to Africa to fight aids. Next? Let's remember that this is a PROPOSED budget. I expect it will be paired down quite a bit by the time it passes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Agreed, RT. Though, to be fair, Bush has taken the step of limiting government increases in this budget proposal. I can't believe I'm happy with the prospect of just a 3.5 percent increase, but after years and years of growth beyond inflation just feeding the beast it looks like we're taking a turn back a little. I hope we have a time we see a budget submitted that cuts government substantially. By 10 percent at least in the first go around. Wishful thinking though I fear as you are right. Politicians are careerists. They have a perfect pension. They don't worry about real world living like politicians who were just citizens doing their share. Now that they live in Washington and never leave, they never go into the real world and see how their fiscal policies are working, or not working. We'd be much better off if every government employee -- every one in every department really -- had a term limit, but ESPECIALLY so for legislators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 I agree. So what should we cut out? I say start with the 15 billion to Africa to fight aids. Next? Let's remember that this is a PROPOSED budget. I expect it will be paired down quite a bit by the time it passes. Kilmer, I actually agree with you on this. The problem in Africa is mostly behaviorial. Keep that money here and spend some of it trying to cure Aids. We should get rid of farm subsidies and eliminate the INS since they are useless anyway. We could move to a flat tax and close down the IRS too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 Farm subsidies should be first on the hit list!!! Unfortunately, W already signed a bill last year that ballooned them and completely undid even the modest reforms of the 90s :doh: The AIDS $$ to Africa is W trying to win over Gays and African Americans who have been put off the Republican party by Social Conservatives like Buchanan. The Dept of Education's last audit showed it had a BILLION dollars missing that it couldn't account for. W responded by giving them their biggest budget increase ever.:shootinth For all the supposed "extremism" of the Gingrich-led congresses, they never closed down a single department. The govenrment did at least keep spending growth adjusted for inflation slightly below population growth, which is what helped give us surpluses and record postwar economic growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 I agree. So what should we cut out? I say start with the 15 billion to Africa to fight aids. Next? Let's remember that this is a PROPOSED budget. I expect it will be paired down quite a bit by the time it passes. RIGHT ON!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Art We'd be much better off if every government employee -- every one in every department really -- had a term limit, but ESPECIALLY so for legislators. What??? We agree on something???? What has the world come to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 dogs and cats, sleeping together..... This thread should be closed before Zool shows up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Art We'd be much better off if every government employee -- every one in every department really -- had a term limit, but ESPECIALLY so for legislators. Why stop there? Lets put a term limit on everyones job. Why would we want consistency when it comes to planning, say, somone's financial future or being a family doctor to someone. Much like, say, having any consistency in planning our highway system (like a government employee might have)? Talk about showing how out of touch people really are. But then, you probably dont have any experience working in an underappreciated, underpaid, line of work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Damn double posts. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 TEG, Government is not the real world. If you were to force people to work in the real world, it would probably make them have a different opinion of government and it would likely alter how people view life. I have absolutely worked an underpaid and underappreciated job. I have merely done so in the private sector as I have always refused to consider any government job because in my heart, I couldn't justify the position as it would be my belief it is an unnecessary one . But, the fact is, your example is a poor one. Every President names the leaders of his departments so, planning, is in fact limited to the length of time a President serves as every new administration may alter any plan in particular, and, I believe you know it. My father was a life long government employee. He made well over $150,000 in the last few years. His position? Essentially head janitor as he was the building manager for the Department of Labor at the very end -- only because he told a Clinton Presidential appointee to **** off though and when they tried to terminate him the workers went on strike and they tried to punish him by making him their boss , but I digress. Government was initially thought of as a citizen's civic duty. It was a duty to serve and an honor to serve one's nation. Now, it's a job. And in 20 years the top five employers in, for example, Minnesota have gone from five corporations to four government, tax-funded entities -- the federal government, state government, University of Minnesota, and the Mayo Clinic -- and one -- Target -- corporation. People should be limited to how much time they can serve. That would, perhaps, end the nightmare we have now and get people inspired to do something positive with the time they do have to plan the highway system . But, even if you don't wish to extend it there, at least extend it to our decision makers who are never out in the real world and yet who are making policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 well Art...you may get your wish. At least in my field of view....gov't is radically trimming the military and GS presence (billets) in the IT field and hiring contractors to fill the void. we'll see how, especially in offices where there are mixed groups of contractors, the public interest is served..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 I agree. So what should we cut out? I say start with the 15 billion to Africa to fight aids. Next? The 15 billion didnt get proposed because Bush all of a sudden felt compassionate. Its a way to try to win some minority/moderate votes, but more importantly its a PC way of giving pharmaceutical companies an easy 15 billion dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Storm The 15 billion didnt get proposed because Bush all of a sudden felt compassionate. Its a way to try to win some minority/moderate votes, but more importantly its a PC way of giving pharmaceutical companies an easy 15 billion dollars. I hadn't even thought of that - but it does make some political sense. Aren't the pharmaceutical companies big in bed with the GOP? Not saying that this is the reason - but I wouldnt put it pass the political parties (Dems included) to funnel $'s this way. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Interesting that the Dept. of Edumacation was mentioned. My cousin used to work there as some high on the hog muckety muck or other. He complained that a lot of his job entailed putting the kybosh on frivolous spending and he was never very popular for it. To make matters worse, in many cases a congressman would be called and he would be forced to ok the grant. He ultimately got tired of it and left. He now works at a think tank here in Atlanta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.