Bush Tells Congress to Put Brakes on New Spending
Tough Talk for Tax-and-Spend Liberals
By Bluey Posted in Congress — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The end of the fiscal year is less than a week away and Congress is still procrastinating with the 12 appropriations bills that keep the federal government running. President Bush challenged Democrats today to hold the line on spending and do so without tax increases.
The White House has stepped up its efforts on taxes and spending this year after voters sent Washington a message last November about overspending during Bush's first six years in office. It's a welcome sight for conservatives who have been clamoring for a return to fiscal restraint.
Bush's remarks today were a positive development. He called on Congress to pass a continuing resolution by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year; and he stressed that the extra $22 billion that Democrats want to include in the budget is unacceptable (illustrated by the above chart).
The plan they have put forward includes an increase in discretionary spending that is nearly $22 billion more than my budget request. Some in Congress will tell you that $22 billion is not a lot of money. As business leaders, you know better. As a matter of fact, $22 billion is larger than the annual revenues of most Fortune 500 companies. And the $22 billion is only for the first year. With every passing year, the number gets bigger and bigger, and so, for the next five years, the increase in federal spending would add up to $205 billion. And the only way to pay for such a large spending increase is to raise taxes on the American people.
While conservatives have for years complained about the big-government conservatism practiced by the White House, this tough talk comes better late than never.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Who Are The Next Great Leaders? — Comments (7) »
Bush Tells Congress to Put Brakes on New Spending 11 Comments (0 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The expanded SCHIP would be a new big, growing blob of 'mandatory' spending, right? So this isn't even the whole story.
Divided government. Humph.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Yeah, it is appreciated. Although I'd argue the difference between the Prez's budget and the Congress' budget doesn't amount to all that much, percentage wise. It looks bigger in the graph cuz they started at $400B instead of $0, but whatever. The difference each year is, like, 5% to 12% or so? So yeah, a good start, but, you know, miles to go before we sleep and all.
Also, does Vegas have an over/under on those numbers beyond 2008? Cuz I want in on that action. (Hint: take the over!)
Adding 5% growth on TOP of whatever the President's budget grows things is insane. We can't afford that, period. We're already in trouble budget-wise once the Mandatory stuff busts loose, so we need to continue holding the line on Discretionary as we have the last six years.
And yes, I said continue holding the line. Say what you want about the Republican pork, but it was 1% of the budget. If the Ds are adding 5%, that proves that Rep. DeLay was right all along.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Then again, there's no way that these gaps are 5% of the budget. Maybe 5% of discretionary, but not 5% of the whole actual budget.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Bush gave us no bargain with"no child left behind" and the"prescription drug program". His sudden burst of fiscal sanity is quite questionable.
Only once in the past six years did discretionary non-defense spending jump way up. That was in the post-9/11 budget, when we were spending up to our ears in sudden Homeland Security and terrorism cleanup.
NCLB's problems are in the end run around federalism, not in the sudden spending. He didn't *create* the DoE after all.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
As for Medicare D, it's irrelevant to this context.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
All spending is relevant--the money has to come from somewhere. The drug entitlement is just that an entitlement which will continue to grow with no predictions on how much it will eventually cost us. And I want to add that the steady erosion of the value of our currency these past 7 years(oh yeah, I forgot there is no inflation)is something that we have yet to feel the full effects of.
We've had a steady erosion of the value of our currency since the Nixon administration, and actually our currency's never been the same since FDR.
And I'm glad of it; inflation sure beats the cycle of gold standard deflation and panic.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
Actually the value of our currency has been declining more or less since the creation of the federal reserve, but that's a discussion for another time.
My point is the deficit figures and the inflation figures are not accurate--they are lying to us. There have been numerous off budget expenditures and "emergency" spending measures. George Bush has not kept tight reins on the budget, and his sudden conversion to budget hawk, while welcome, is suspect.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---