For Stacy Smith - Government Spending still climbs

by Phantom Stranger 13 Replies latest social current

• 

  Phantom Stranger

  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.

  The preliminary spending figures for 2003 also raise questions about the government's long-term fiscal health. Bush administration officials have said fiscal restraint and "pro-growth" tax cuts should put the government on a path to a balanced budget. Bush has demanded that spending that is subject to Congress's annual discretion be capped at 4 percent.

  But the Republican-led Congress has not obliged. The federal government spent nearly $826 billion in fiscal 2003, an increase of $91.5 billion over 2002, said G. William Hoagland, a senior budget and economic aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). Military spending shot up nearly 17 percent, to $407.3 billion, but nonmilitary discretionary spending also far outpaced Bush's limit, rising 8.7 percent, to $418.6 billion.

  Much of the increase was driven by war in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as homeland security spending after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But spending has risen on domestic programs such as transportation and agriculture, as well. Total federal spending -- including non-discretionary entitlement programs such as Social Security Medicare and Medicaid -- reached $2.16 trillion in 2003, a 7.3 percent boost, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

  White House officials have said the president's 4 percent annual growth cap was never supposed to curtail "one-time" spending requests, such as natural disaster aid or wars. But even if such emergency spending measures are removed, spending jumped last year by 7.9 percent, Hoagland said.
• 

  Stacy Smith

  Thank you for thinking of me when you titled this thread. It means more to me than you know
• 

  SixofNine

  Don't be so hard on congress, they need leadership and they have none.
• 

  logansrun

  Are you a republican Stacey Smith???

  B.
• 

  William Penwell

  Government Spending still climbs

  Well it doesn't take an Einstien to figure that out when they have just spent 87 billion dollars on the war in Iraq.

  Will
• 

  logansrun

  I thought it was 89 billion.
• 

  crownboy

  "It's the run away spending of the Democratic congress, not the President that is at fault" (despite presidential veto power, of course)

  *damn, the Repubs control both houses of Congress*

  "The President is fighting a war on terror. To argue with his spending is to be un-American. Are you with America or the terrorists? You're either with us or against us. God bless America. "
• 

  DakotaRed

  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.

  Then, what's all the outcry coming from Democrats about Republicans starving children and ending necessary programs? The way they have been crying for so long, you would think the government programs are non-existant.
• 

  SanFranciscoJim

  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.

  Then, what's all the outcry coming from Democrats about Republicans starving children and ending necessary programs? The way they have been crying for so long, you would think the government programs are non-existant.

  Perhaps I misread the article, but I don't see anything stating that government spending is being utilized to aid the poverty stricken and destitute. There have been no improvements whatsoever in the status of the homeless and lower income families. The vast majority of the new government spending directly or indirectly serves the military.

  Maybe this is the reason the current administration is ignoring the growing threat of North Korea. Under Kim Jong Il's regime, you eat if you serve. If you remain in the private sector, you starve. One can only hope that this is not being used as a role model for this country.
• 

  DakotaRed

  Maybe this is the reason the current administration is ignoring the growing threat of North Korea. Under Kim Jong Il's regime, you eat if you serve. If you remain in the private sector, you starve.

  And if he steps up and acts, he is just a power grabbing warmonger. No matter what he does, the left will complain.

  As for the spending, just because a slanted article doesn't say it, doesn't mean it isn't being done. I don't see long lines of soup kitchens. Everytime I go grocery shopping, food stamps are brought out by someone, so they're getting them from somewhere. I can't get them, though, I work for a living.

  But spending has risen on domestic programs such as transportation and agriculture, as well. Total federal spending -- including non-discretionary entitlement programs such as Social Security Medicare and Medicaid -- reached $2.16 trillion in 2003, a 7.3 percent boost, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

  Seems to me, he hasn't simply forgotten about social programs either. Maybe if you read an entire article you post, you would see that. Yes, spending needs to come down, no argument there. But, as soon as any spending is cut, who jumps up and cries about them cutting someone off?

  Remember the latest Bush tax cuts everyone cried about? I didn't get one because I have no children at home. Families with children received one. Seems to me, they were the ones who needed it most and received it. Seems also, the economy is doing a lot better since then too, so, Democrats needed something else to assail the man over.

  No matter what, he gets condemned constantly. So, who is really the power hungry?