This disgusts me to no end:
Confounding President Bush’s pledges to rein in government growth, federal discretionary spending expanded by 12.5 percent in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, capping a two-year bulge that saw the government grow by more than 27 percent, according to preliminary spending figures from congressional budget panels.
The sudden rise in spending subject to Congress’s annual discretion stands in marked contrast to the 1990s, when such discretionary spending rose an average of 2.4 percent a year. Not since 1980 and 1981 has federal spending risen at a similar clip. Before those two years, spending increases of this magnitude occurred at the height of the Vietnam War, 1966 to 1968.
Sickening.
Jay Caruso
And people say they don’t like divided government.
Problem is, what side do you want? Spending was held down in the Clinton era thanks to the GOP. Now that one of their own is in office, they’re happy to spend freely. Of course, Clinton was the one nominating, “The Constitution is what I say it is” judges to the federal judiciary.
If Democrats controlled Congress, the fruit loop lefty’s would be leading – Rangel, Conyers, Waxman, Kennedy, Leahy, etc.
Maybe the best of both worlds is to have what we did from 1981-1986 – Republican in the White House, GOP controlled Senate, Democrats in control of the House.
It wasn’t until the Dems took back the Senate that we got lousy legislation, like that God-awful Tax Reform Act of 1986. The elimination of deducting other types of interest aside from the home mortgage deduction in favor of lower marginal rates was torpedoed in 1990 with a tax increase and then again in 1993 with another tax increase.
Of course, I don’t want a guy like Howard Dean or John Kerry running the country so there’s some tough choices.
Dean
Jay,
Why GOP-Senate and Dem-House? I suppose a Dem Senate would probably block judicial opponents, but a Dem House is far less likely to appropriate sufficient funds for defense. It took quite a bit, iirc, for Reagan to get the defense increases needed back then.
Ralph Higgins
A surge in spending does not = a general increase of government.
There are temporary factors not being mentioned, so this is misleading.
Clinton did cut alot out of security, so should we applaud him? or, should we blame him for what the press tells us about the security we have today?
Should we tally up increased spending covered under congress aproved budgets for war like this report does?
I don’t think so, they are separate issues, but, if you want to bash Bush over them feel free, but make sure you know why, and where the money comes from, and why it was needed.
The steel tarrif, it’s going to do what?
Gop said, it will hurt, but it was congress that pushed it, dems and unions. Bush had to cave in, he needed the congress at the time.
Now, it will hurt. Same as the lumber thing. Dems again demanding it.
Ralph Higgins
I should add, there will be alot of mud tossing, but it seems that the Dems will bring down the house and give the “repugs” an easy victory as long as they keep doing stuff like this:
Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in September that “Clark was relieved of his assignment as NATO commander because of “integrity and character issues,”
Clark is the Dem secret weapon to beat Bush. It doesn’t sit well to make him ‘commander’, If his military record is questionable.
Dean has a skeleton as well, he just got endorsed(money) from a big union, SEIU, who has a dirty track record in health care, and is being sued by other unions. I wonder how far in that mess Dean goes. Buh bye California for Dean if that makes headlines.
"Edward"
“Discretionary” spending includes defense spending and homeland security. While not thrilled with increases in the latter, the former doesn’t bother me. The most telling part of the story: “the president cut spending growth, excluding the Pentagon and homeland security, to 6 percent in 2002 and 5 percent in 2003, and has proposed to hold all discretionary spending to 4 percent growth this year.” We’ll see, but this isn’t yet a disaster.
Kimmitt
“Spending was held down in the Clinton era thanks to the GOP. ”
I keep hearing this, but I’ve seen nothing which backs it up. Spending grew at more or less the same speed while Clinton had both Houses of Congress to work with as when he was wrangling with the Republicans; the constant was Clinton’s commitment to fiscal discipline, not divided government.
Jay Caruso
Righhhhht. That health care proposal was a textbook case of Clinton’s ‘fiscal discipline.’
Spending for defense shrunk in the 2 years Democrats controlled Congress. That’s what allowed the total spending to appear as though it hadn’t grown.
drew
The Tax Reform Act of ’86 was without a doubt the greatest piece of tax legislation to ever make it through congress. As an accountant I can tell you about the multitude of tax loopholes and subsidies. The ’86 Tax reform bill was able to close many of these loopholes.
As for the Clinton cuts in military spending, nobody in their right mind would have kept defense spending at pre-1990 levels. Even with the Gulf War GHW Bush cut defense spending during his presidency.
Lets look at the numbers here J-dawg. The years in which Clinton had a Democratic congress were fiscal years 94-95. Discretionary domestic spending remained at 3.4% of GDP in those years. Total discressionary spending did go down in those two years while total domestic discretionary spending remained constant. Military spending -down domestic discressionary spending-constatnt. In subsiquent years the domestic discretionary spending went down, but later went up during the later part of the Clinton era, and went up further while Mr. Bush was in office. Under Bush discretionary spending has exceeded spending under Clinton. Note the last year shown on these CBO tables is FY 2002 which wouldn’t include, correct me if I’m wrong here, post 9/11 security spending increases.
All you non-questioning Bush loyalists (which doesn’t include Mr. Cole) need to face it Bush is a big spender
Andrew Lazarus
Calpundit has more, quoting NRO.
IOW, as Calpundit points out, the GOP plan is to lie like hell until the election, then sandbag the country with the cuts they’ve wanted all along. (I love fiscal discipline, but I don’t think NRO’s cuts and my cuts match.)
Hey, voodoo economics has won elections before!
Kimmitt
“Righhhhht. That health care proposal was a textbook case of Clinton’s ‘fiscal discipline.'”
Due respect, but Clinton got whupped on that one fair and square — he proposed the program and the appropriate tax hikes to fuel it, and his own party disagreed with the final result and declined to pass it. Clinton then let it drop and continued his overall commitment to fiscal sanity through his tenure.
David Perron
“the GOP plan is to lie like hell until the election”
As Kimmitt has ably pointed out on previous threads, this is all part of the normal give and take of political discussion. So what’s your beef?
Kimmitt
Right — because telling outright lies is exactly the same as choosing which of two entirely correct statistics to use to measure the economy.
Actually, come to think of it, you’ve just explained to me how Republicans sleep at night. Thanks!
David Perron
In normal spacetime, Kimmitt, lies occur in the past. Not sure about where you are.
Sure, lying is wrong. So is citing statistics and…lying with them. Not saying I agree with either one, just saying you do.
Andrew Lazarus
David, you might consider how much the Perot, Ventura and Schwarzenegger phenomena are tied to the sort of habitual lying we’re talking about. I’m a little surprised that the major parties haven’t engaged in a course correction to try to recover the radical center. I would have said the GOP was doing this more successfully than the Dems with the recall campaign against Gray Davis, until I read this pundit’s article.
Rumors say Schwarzenegger’s first budget features a probably-illegal and certainly counterproductive $20 Bn bond issue. When that comes up for confirmation by referendum, I’m voting “NO”. Let’s see those service cuts and tax increases now, instead of hoping to get to the retirement home before the s— hits the fan.
David Perron
As much as I loathe the lying-to-get-elected phenomenon, it’s usually a good idea to distinguish lying from a change in tactics. Again, as I told Kimmitt, lies occur in the past. You can’t accuse Bush of lying about something in the future. Furthermore, failure to do something you project you’ll do, especially when it’s an appropriate response to unforeseeable circumstances, doesn’t constitute a lie. Or, more precisely, a change in tactics as an appropriate response to unforeseen circumstances isn’t something that reasonable people would be critical of.
Those things said, I’m quite disgusted by things such as the Farm Bill, which somehow passed as measures necessary for the continued survival of post-9/11 America. In short, I think there are quite a lot of conservatives who think Bush has mucked things up on the home front, including myself.
Hipocrite
The 1986 TRA was the single most lauded tax bill in the history of the world. Everyone from the Cato Institute to CTJ thinks it was the best tax bill ever.
Anyone who thinks otherwise has a long, long trek uphill to even gain a smidgen of credibility on any tax issue again. Let’s hear it, Jay, why was that 1986 tax bill bad? Try to do it without mentioning future tax bills, necessary only due to massive government deficits.
Francis W. Porretto
See also this.
Pootie Tang
Jay
In 1986 Republican still controlled the Senate. Democrats took control of the Senate in January, 1987.
George Pomar
All I can say about the Repubs and fiscal conservatism is…HA. I remember the Halo Fool, Sean Hannity, clambering about being a COMPASSIONATE conservative. I still laugh, pardon me while I do so… HA. Bush’s label was his precursor, his warning, that he was a big spender in a tailored GOP suit. Fools. All 50 million that voted for him. We’re all now getting what we deserve… Neo-cons. Dumb-asses, all of them. They, the new liberal party of America will soon become a haven for the welfare leeches, and the DNC will become another extremist group ala carte. In come the Libertarians (capital L). Full circle will come about, and America will once again become the model created by our forefathers.
At least I hope ;)
David Perron
Well, that was an extraordinary display of wishful thinking.
Seriously. Hannity? Clambering?
Kimmitt
Mr. Pomar, you have a telegram from a Mr. Wolfowitz. Says he likes the way you think and needs you to help him stovepipe some intelligence.
russ
Hmmm, what do I see missing here regarding the apparent, “run away” federal budget?
I think of George W’s pandering to the lovers of the 3rd world turd trollers by spending $15 billion for the supposed fight against A.I.D.S. but if history is any guide will mostly end up in the foreign bank of accounts of the dictators running those A.I.D.S ridden 3rd world turd trolling countries…
Then George W pandered to the alcoholic woman killer from Ma. over education… There is a whole lot of tax dollars just waiting to go to waste…
Then George W pandered to the dim-witted Dems over airport security which resulted in the TSA people who are a whole lot more expensive than the private outfits that used to man the security slots but the TSA if recent, numerous news stories are any indication not a whole lot more proficient in security…
Then there is the whole Homeland Security agency itself… Now that’s a boondoggle beyond description created to compensate for the inter agency turf battles of pre-existing federal police and intelligence agencies… How much did that little nugget of nonsense cost and how much will it cost in the future?
If one takes these most recent tax dollar sucking situations and adds them onto the ever expanding entitlement programs that cost more per hour today than yesterday and one has the pefect formula for a runaway federal deficit…
drew
Turd World, so mature.