The GOP and spending

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-20 11:27pm

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110004579

Sweet lord.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-20 11:28pm

It wants me to sign up before I can read it.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-20 11:29pm

It says I need to register to view the article.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-01-20 11:29pm

Darth Wong wrote:It wants me to sign up before I can read it.

I don't want to sign up either.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-01-20 11:31pm

In tonight's State of the Union address, President Bush can claim credit for a rebounding economy spurred by two rounds of tax cuts. He can take further credit for pushing those cuts despite opposition from the deficit hand-wringers--including, we now know, his first Treasury Secretary.

But if the gap between revenues and outlays is of small concern in any single year--and especially during recession and war--it does not follow that there should be no worry over rapidly rising levels of federal spending. The much delayed omnibus appropriations bill for 2004, scheduled for a vote in the Senate this afternoon, looks set to cap the first term of the most profligate Administration since the 1960s.

Steve Moore of the Club for Growth calls this bill a pork-laden monstrosity worse than any ever produced when Congress was controlled by "tax-and-spend" liberals. There's federal money for the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, and one traffic light somewhere in upstate New York. There's $50 million for an indoor rain forest in Coralville, Iowa. (For that price we could send the whole town on a rain forest vacation.) There's $2 million for a golf awareness program in St. Augustine, Florida. The number of such earmarked federal expenditures has quintupled in the past five years to about 10,000, worth $23 billion, for 2004.

What's more, Congress's drunken spending sailors consider all of this special interest money not a source of shame but of pride. "The subcommittees have tried to accommodate your priorities and concerns in this bill," reads a recent letter to colleagues from Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens of Alaska. "Attached you will find a list of projects that may be of particular interest to you ..."

GOP leaders would have us believe this all adds up to one of the leanest spending plans in years--an increase in federal discretionary spending of only 3%, compared with 13% and 12% in each of the previous two years. But Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation points out that it's really more like a 9% increase, and that's assuming there will be no supplemental appropriations as in previous years.

The 3% vs. 9% discrepancy results from the difference between budget authority and actual outlays. The increase in budget authority looks smaller only because a lot of money that will actually be spent in 2004 was assigned to 2003. That's true most importantly of the Iraq war supplemental. But the drive for the appearance of fiscal sanity has also reduced our representatives to gimmicks such as moving the authority for $2.2 billion in education spending back into 2003, after previously voting to push it forward to 2004. When corporations tried accounting like this, Congress gave us Sarbanes-Oxley.

The bottom line is truly shocking. Passage of the omnibus bill would raise total discretionary spending to more than $900 billion in 2004. By contrast, the eight Clinton-era budgets produced discretionary spending growth from $541 billion 1994 to $649 billion in 2001. Nor can recent increases be blamed on the war. At 18.6%, the increase in non-defense discretionary spending under the 107th Congress (2002-2003) is far and away the biggest in decades. In 2003, total federal spending topped an inflation-adjusted $20,000 per household for the first time since World War

Amazing as it may sound, the ostensibly small-government GOP seems totally oblivious to the fact that all this spending puts its future economic agenda in jeopardy. Appropriations do mean taxes after all, even if they're deferred taxes. There's also a moral dimension here. Can anybody honestly maintain that working Americans should be coerced to ante up for golf awareness?

As we went to press yesterday, GOP leaders still didn't have the votes to pass the bill. There were rumors of a possible deal with Western Senators including Tom Daschle to speed up country-of-origin labeling requirements for food (currently delayed by this bill). Here's hoping, for once, that Senator Daschle holds his ground and embarrasses the GOP.

The truth is that this spending bill is hardly necessary. The government has been running just fine at 2003 spending levels since September (have you noticed?), and can easily continue to do so for the rest of the fiscal year. We realize Mr. Bush is eager for passage of certain line items, such as his program to combat AIDS in Africa, but this bill is literally too high a price to pay, especially in terms of his own credibility. We're not holding our breath for a change of heart, but President Bush can help shore up his conservative base and appeal to many moderate voters by exercising his very first veto here.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-20 11:31pm

Huh, that's weird. I didn't have to sign and I'm not registered with the WSJ. In any case:

Even Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress didn't spend like this.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

In tonight's State of the Union address, President Bush can claim credit for a rebounding economy spurred by two rounds of tax cuts. He can take further credit for pushing those cuts despite opposition from the deficit hand-wringers--including, we now know, his first Treasury Secretary.
But if the gap between revenues and outlays is of small concern in any single year--and especially during recession and war--it does not follow that there should be no worry over rapidly rising levels of federal spending. The much delayed omnibus appropriations bill for 2004, scheduled for a vote in the Senate this afternoon, looks set to cap the first term of the most profligate Administration since the 1960s.

Steve Moore of the Club for Growth calls this bill a pork-laden monstrosity worse than any ever produced when Congress was controlled by "tax-and-spend" liberals. There's federal money for the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, and one traffic light somewhere in upstate New York. There's $50 million for an indoor rain forest in Coralville, Iowa. (For that price we could send the whole town on a rain forest vacation.) There's $2 million for a golf awareness program in St. Augustine, Florida. The number of such earmarked federal expenditures has quintupled in the past five years to about 10,000, worth $23 billion, for 2004.

What's more, Congress's drunken spending sailors consider all of this special interest money not a source of shame but of pride. "The subcommittees have tried to accommodate your priorities and concerns in this bill," reads a recent letter to colleagues from Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens of Alaska. "Attached you will find a list of projects that may be of particular interest to you ..."

GOP leaders would have us believe this all adds up to one of the leanest spending plans in years--an increase in federal discretionary spending of only 3%, compared with 13% and 12% in each of the previous two years.

But Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation points out that it's really more like a 9% increase, and that's assuming there will be no supplemental appropriations as in previous years.The 3% vs. 9% discrepancy results from the difference between budget authority and actual outlays. The increase in budget authority looks smaller only because a lot of money that will actually be spent in 2004 was assigned to 2003. That's true most importantly of the Iraq war supplemental. But the drive for the appearance of fiscal sanity has also reduced our representatives to gimmicks such as moving the authority for $2.2 billion in education spending back into 2003, after previously voting to push it forward to 2004. When corporations tried accounting like this, Congress gave us Sarbanes-Oxley.

The bottom line is truly shocking. Passage of the omnibus bill would raise total discretionary spending to more than $900 billion in 2004. By contrast, the eight Clinton-era budgets produced discretionary spending growth from $541 billion 1994 to $649 billion in 2001. Nor can recent increases be blamed on the war. At 18.6%, the increase in non-defense discretionary spending under the 107th Congress (2002-2003) is far and away the biggest in decades. In 2003, total federal spending topped an inflation-adjusted $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II.

Amazing as it may sound, the ostensibly small-government GOP seems totally oblivious to the fact that all this spending puts its future economic agenda in jeopardy. Appropriations do mean taxes after all, even if they're deferred taxes. There's also a moral dimension here. Can anybody honestly maintain that working Americans should be coerced to ante up for golf awareness?

As we went to press yesterday, GOP leaders still didn't have the votes to pass the bill. There were rumors of a possible deal with Western Senators including Tom Daschle to speed up country-of-origin labeling requirements for food (currently delayed by this bill). Here's hoping, for once, that Senator Daschle holds his ground and embarrasses the GOP.

The truth is that this spending bill is hardly necessary. The government has been running just fine at 2003 spending levels since September (have you noticed?), and can easily continue to do so for the rest of the fiscal year. We realize Mr. Bush is eager for passage of certain line items, such as his program to combat AIDS in Africa, but this bill is literally too high a price to pay, especially in terms of his own credibility. We're not holding our breath for a change of heart, but President Bush can help shore up his conservative base and appeal to many moderate voters by exercising his very first veto here.

The emphasized stuff (mine, BTW) is the most important.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-20 11:46pm

Haven't I been saying this for ages? I don't know why anybody could have doubted that Bush was a massive spender after his first two years in office, or why anybody could have bought into the line of bullshit that it was all defense spending.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-20 11:48pm

I always knew Bush was a heavy spender. But I wasn't aware it was to this extent.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-21 12:09am

Joe wrote:I always knew Bush was a heavy spender. But I wasn't aware it was to this extent.

Yapping about discretionary spending is great red meat for the base, but a majority party needs to look at the big picture. The problem is most of these increases are in health, education and transportation. It's easy to complain about the spending until somebody has to actually work in these areas to get it under control. The Administration can afford to wait until its second term, when it comes back to push real entitlement reform. $380 billion in nondefense discretionary spending now is a small price to pay for the economic growth you get from tax cuts and savings from even partly privatizing the public entitlements.

Rev Prez

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-21 12:11am

Well, that does make a bit of sense, since Bush did briefly mention entitlement reform during the address.

On the other hand it wouldn't hurt for Bush to use his veto power at some point.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-21 12:23am

Joe wrote:On the other hand it wouldn't hurt for Bush to use his veto power at some point.

My guess is he doesn't really want to expend capital this early trying to control spending when the increaess are in education, health, and transportation--things even a minority party could use as leverage to rollback some of the tax cuts. The rising deficit and upcoming baby boomber retirement in the next ten years really forces the entitlement issue, and if you're talking about entitlement reform on the terms the President apparantly wants to--in crisis mode--you've already got the axe primed for real discretionary budget cutting. But transportation (which is now up to some $370 billion over six years) and education bills will have to go through at least until 2006. Farming, on the other hand, at $170 billion might get gutted as early as next year if the President comes to an agreement with the WH nations. After that, he'll have done enough to say "okay, we're going to hold this at current levels until I say differently or else."

Rev Prez

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-01-22 07:04am

Well, obviously it's politically expedient to keep spending and cutting taxes for the short term. That does not change the fact that it creates long-term pain. Two SOTU addresses ago, Bush promised to keep deficits low, remember?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-01-22 07:38am

I assume now that the national debt that America is amassing at a great rate is swept under the carpet for future governments to deal with. Passing the buck (or should that be trillions of bucks) like this is a bad idea as is the innane tactic of increasing spending and offering tax cuts.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-22 10:38am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I assume now that the national debt that America is amassing at a great rate is swept under the carpet for future governments to deal with. Passing the buck (or should that be trillions of bucks) like this is a bad idea as is the innane tactic of increasing spending and offering tax cuts.

Actually, I heard that Bush recently allocated 100 billion dollars to a commitee formed to build an enormous rug in great plains states that he could sweep the debt under.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 10:46am

Darth Wong wrote:Well, obviously it's politically expedient to keep spending and cutting taxes for the short term.

This isn't about political expediency. This is how serious majority parties govern.

That does not change the fact that it creates long-term pain.

Only if the President is overreaching on entitlement reform. Otherwise it's entirely manageable.

Two SOTU addresses ago, Bush promised to keep deficits low, remember?

He also said: "While the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high. Whatever it costs to defend our freedom and our country, we will pay." And deficits are low as a percentage of GDP; Brookings' nattering nabobs even agree that the problem doesn't reach a head until six years after the President leaves office.

Rev Prez

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-01-22 02:05pm

This almost always happens when you have one party in secure control of the House, Senate, and Presidency.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-01-22 04:23pm

I thought that the plan was to spend like crazy so that if the Democrats came back in power they would have a mess on their hands and could be easily blamed.

And if they don't get power, the Republicans can still blame the Democrats. Damn liberals, trying to take our money and letting our children be gay...

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 04:26pm

Mayabird wrote:I thought that the plan was to spend like crazy so that if the Democrats came back in power they would have a mess on their hands and could be easily blamed.

Nobody's that Machivellian. The common thinking is that the deficits now will politically compel the Democrats to go along with the majority party on entitlement reform.

And if they don't get power, the Republicans can still blame the Democrats. Damn liberals, trying to take our money and letting our children be gay...

Well, those are two issues the Dems erected their tent over.

Rev Prez

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-01-22 04:41pm

That was meant to be cynical humor. :: sigh :: I don't want to use smileys all the time. It makes me feel like I can't tell a twisted joke on its own merits.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-01-22 05:37pm

The only difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to spending is that the Republicans try to pretend to be conservative.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-01-22 06:14pm

$380 billion in nondefense discretionary spending now is a small price to pay for the economic growth you get from tax cuts and savings from even partly privatizing the public entitlements.

*Cough cough cough! ouch that one hurt

I wonder what we(The Military) could do with $380 Billion doller increase in our budget?

Air Force-A full wing(144) or three of B-2s!

Navy-Two new Carriers and the battlegroups and planes to go with them

Marines-Gold Plated MRE's and leather seating in all the Vech's
Army-.......mmm I don't know... Mechs?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-22 08:05pm

I must say, the idea of the military operating on a 600 billion+ budget amuses me.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-22 08:08pm

Joe wrote:I must say, the idea of the military operating on a 600 billion+ budget amuses me.

At present the rate of increase in defense spending, we'll be at $575 by the end of the decade.

Rev Prez

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-01-22 08:10pm

Joe wrote:I must say, the idea of the military operating on a 600 billion+ budget amuses me.

In a good way or a bad way?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-22 08:21pm

Good, of course.