|
|
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
|
|
DISORDER IN THE HOUSE
MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.
THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?
MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. Get any sleep?
-President George W. Bush, during a "town hall" meeting in Omaha, Nebraska, Friday February 4, 2005
Yes, you did read that correctly. The "pro-family" president celebrated a single mother for not being able to spend time with her children. At least she didn't abort the kids or divorce another woman, or anything crazy. The story would likely be very different then.
And to call a single mother having three jobs "uniquely American" is something of a misnomer. In fact, such economic circumstances were quite common in the works of Charles Dickens. For my American readers who have been cheerleading the economic policies of this administration, I strongly suggest that you read the works of Dickens. You're going to need to acclimate your children to the idea of being a chimney sweep at night. On the bright side, the word "urchin" may soon re-enter the American lexicon.
I'm continually amazed that anyone who fancies themself a conservative contnues to support this president. Its a fantastic development, really. To say that President Bush has the fiscal priorites of the most irrespomsible Democrat would a slur against irresponsible Democrats everywhere.
I humbly suggest to my conservative friends that they look very closely at the President's $2.57 TRILLION budget, and honestly ask themselves what their response would be had president whose signature was affixed to it was named Clinton or Kerry as opposed to Bush. I would suggest that the response would be less than encouraging. And this would be a good and proper response. But to celebrate a budget on the basis of which party proposes it is intellectually dishonest.
In his State of the Union address, President Bush announced that he would submit a budget that would cut back or eliminate some 150 programs. This, he said, was designed to fufil his campaign pledge to reduce the deficit by half in four years. Of course, this is utter nonsense. Government spending in this budget is actually up 3.5%.
In the course of his campaign, the President made the commitment to reduce the deficit. One of the central themes of his campaign was "irresponsibility" of Senator Kerry's 2 trillion spending plans. During his speech accepting the Republican nomination on September 2, 2004, the President said this;
"Wait a minute, wait a minute: To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for. He's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. And to pay for that spending, he's running on a platform of increasing taxes -- and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps.
His tax -- his policies of tax and spend -- of expanding government rather than expanding opportunity -- are the policies of the past. We are on the path to the future -- and we're not turning back."
In fact, the President's proposals in his convention speech alone were projected to cost THREE trillion dollars. Most probably, this number will skyrocket.
Earlier in that same speech, President Bush touted the prescription drug benefit to Medicare that he passed earlier in 2003. When the bill passed Congress, it was costed at $400 billion. Two months later, in January 2004, the projection was raised to $534 billion over ten years. In this morning's New York Times, the administration admits that it will now cost $720 billion over that period.
One should keep these projections in mind when considering the President's Social Security reforms, which are currently projected to cost $2 trillion. This number will very likely go up. The wars in Iraq was projected to cost $200 billion dollars by former General Eric Shinseki - a projection that he was personally denounced for. The war's price tag is expected to be $300 billion by the end of this calender year.
In the budget message, President Bush wrote, "In order to sustain our economic expansion, we must continue pro-growth policies and enforce even greater spending restraint across the federal government." This statement would be laughable were it not so dangerous.
To call a three and a half percent budget increase "greater spending restraint" is almost Orwellian. In fact, this president has increased the size of government in ways unseen since Lyndon Johnson held the office.
As a matter of fact, the LBJ analogy is particularly apt. The Kennedy and Johnson administrations greatly reduced tax rates, increased entitlement spending and fought a war. And up until very recently, the Republican Party made much of the consequences of these economic policies during the Seventies. The Kennedy / Johnson policies - combined with the Nixon administrations mposition of wage and price controls in 1971 - lead to the "stagflation" of the Seventies. President Carter suffered great political harm due to the policies of his predecessors.
Instead of repudiating such practices, President Bush has embraced them. In fact, he has done so in a much grander fashion. His 2001 - 2002 tax cuts were much larger that Kennedy 1962 rate reduction. His spending priorities are roughly equivilent to Johnson's and the war in Iraq is eating resources in a way that the Vietnam war took years to achieve. And the commitment to Iraq will be at least as long as the entire war in Vietnam.
Yes, other than defense and homeland security, the budget calls for a cut of one half of one percent for the rest of the government. There are two problems with this number. First, the number is less than rate of growth or inflation and is, therefore, not a cut at all. It is merely a cut in the increase of spending. Second, the budget does not include the increase in the prescription drug benefit, Social Security reform and the continued costs of Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is the "spending restraint of the federal government." No mention of "fiscal responsibility" was made in the message, and with very good reason. The President is expecting economic growth alone to pay for his programs. While it is possible, it is extremely unlikely that current growth projections - which, through the President's first term were below expectations - will bring in enough government revenue. Once the "off-budget" and "supplemental spending", the big ticket items listed above, are considered, it becomes impossible for tax collection alone to pay for it. This will result in yet more deficit spending.
And it is best remembered that these projections are based on continued economic growth. There are several reasons to believe that there may not be any economic growth at all. Should there be another major terorist strike equivilent to 9/11, a recession is likely. If unpredictable developments in Iraq or Iran lead to considerably higher oil prices, a recession is certain. The mere size of the administration's deficits may very well lead to interest rate hikes that would stop economic growth in its tracks.
These are all very real possibilities that the administration is not considering. Instead, the President is relying on a best case scenario that, even if it comes to pass, is unlikely to fund his current priorities. And this is before the President has proposed his reform of the tax code.
And President Bush still doesn't get it. Just yesterday in Detroit, he called his budget "the most disciplined proposal since Ronald Reagan was in office." This anology is blatantly false. While President Reagan is remembered for his 1982 tax cuts, it should be remembered that he was unafraid of raising taxes when needed. In implementing the recommending his 1983 commission on Social Security, he increased the payroll tax. In fact, most of the 1982 tax cut was made up by increases in other taxes and fees during his second term.
Even still, by 1992 the United States had its biggest deficits up until that time. This without massive new entitlement spending by the Reagan administration. President Bush is wearing the mantle of Ronald Reagan as he implements the policies of Lyndon Johnson. And as was true of President Johnson, President Bush has no serious opposition in Congress to reign him in.
Just as it is true that history is important in the implimentation of foreign, so it is with fiscal policy. Should his spending be allowed to continue unabated, the President's real legacy will not be felt for a decade or more, just as it was in the late 1970's. Just as the policies of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson destroyed the admnistrations of Presidents Ford and Carter, this president may well be crippling his successors at a very dangerous time in the world.
As threatening as it was, the Cold War was a very stabilizing influence. The actions of both the United States and the Soviet Union were, with some exceptions, predictable. This could allow some silly domestic spending. This is no longer true. Nations such as North Korea and Iran are unrestrained by super power influence. al-Qaeda has demonstrated that terrorism can be free of state sponsorship and is therefore more difficult to deter. There are any number variables now in the world that the United States, as the world's only super power, must retain the flexability to meet. President Bush's spending priorities risk crippling that flexability.
The consequences could be far more serious than even the ferocious of doom-criers currently predict. The Republican Congress and conservatives everywhere would do well to read the history, look to the future and to consider the possibilities.
Permalink
|
|
|
| |
