M.A., I agree that the Republican Party lost their way. That there is no justification in the outrageous, out of control spending, it is against every conservative principle and tenet, and against everything that the Republican Party stands for. All that were involved should be removed from office!
One factor that should be taken into account however, (which still only justifies a portion of the increase in spending during the periods mentioned) is the attack upon our Nation, and the costs for increased security. Some of the increased security most conservatives were opposed to also. On Apr 16, 4:32 pm, "M.A. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Four Years Growthby Laurence M. Vance"The American people have been > overcharged for Government, and they deserve a refund." ~ President George W. > Bush (The Budget Message of the President, 2002)The year 2000 Platform of the > Republican Party implied that theRepublican Partywas the party that held the > supposedly conservative ideas of fiscal responsibility and smaller > government:"Since 1994, with Republicans leading the House and Senate, > spending has been held to an annual 3.1 percent rate of growth, and the > nation’s debt will be nearly $400 billion lower by the end of this year. The > federal government has operated in the black for the last two years and is > now projected to run a surplus of nearly $5 trillion over the years." > "We intend to downsize this mess and make government actually do what it is > supposed to." > "A Republican president will run the federal government much as the > Republican governors run state agencies. Bureaucracy will be reduced and > trimmed in size at its upper echelons."Nothing could be further from the > truth, for as has been documented, the idea that the Republican Party is the > party of conservatism is amyth. The Republican Party has always been the > party ofbig government,plunder, andsellouts. A look at the "four years > growth" of the federal government under the presidency of George Bush > confirms and amplifies these facts. > The Republicans gained control of the Congress in the third year of Clinton’s > first term. They had complete control of the 104thCongress (1995–1997), held > on to control in the 105thCongress (1997–1999), and remained in power during > the 106thCongress (1999–2001) through the end of Clinton’s presidency. After > George Bush was inaugurated in 2001, he had a Republican-controlled 107th > Congress (2001–2003) until May 24, 2001, when Jim Jeffords (R-VT) switched > from Republican to Independent, changing the Senate from 50/50 to 50 > Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent. The House remained in > Republican hands. The 108th Congress (2003–2005) was once again solidly > Republican, giving the Republicans an absolute majority in Congress and the > White House for the last two years of Bush’s first term. > This means that the Republican Party has no excuse for the size and scope of > the federal government as it exists right now. Republicans can’t blame > anything on the Democrats like they did for the fifty years before they > gained control of the Congress. > Now that we are at the end of Bush’s first four years, a simple question > needs to be asked: Is the government at the end of Bush’s first term in any > way smaller or less expensive than the government at the beginning of his > first term. If it is, then Bush and the Republican Party told the truth, but > if it isn’t, then Bush’s rhetoric was just hot air and the 2000 Republican > Party Platform wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.The Federal > BudgetAccording to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the president must > annually submit a budget to Congress by the first Monday in February. The > government’s fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30. This means that > the budget submitted in February is actually for the next fiscal year that > begins in October. An outgoing president is not required to submit a budget. > And because it is not practical for a new president, who takes office on > January 20, to submit a budget within a few days of taking office, he is > given extra time to submit a budget his first year in office. On February 28, > 2001, President Bush submitted to Congress a FY 2002 summary budget plan > calledA Blueprint for New Beginnings – A Responsible Budget for America’s > Priorities. In his message to the Congress that begins this document, two > comments by the president stand out:Excessive taxation is corroding our > prosperity. Government spending has risen too quickly.And what did Bush > propose to do about these things? He proposed an increase in the federal > budget from $1.856 trillion in FY 2001 to $1.959 trillion in FY 2002. That is > an increase of $103 billion over Clinton’s last budget. Then, on April 9, > 2001, Bush submitted hisFY 2002 budgetto Congress. But the actual budget he > proposed was up to $1.961 trillion. "A Note to the Reader" at the head of one > of the budget’s accompanying documents,A Citizen’s Guide to the Federal > Budget, puts this figure in perspective: "Next year, your Federal Government > will spend nearly $2.0 trillion. Needless to say, that’s a lot of money. In > fact, that’s almost $7,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country; > nearly $5.4 billion per day; and about $3.7 million per minute. And most of > that money comes from taxes on the American people." But it gets worse, for > according to the "Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits" in > theFY 2005 budget, the federal government actually spent $2.011 trillion in > FY 2002. > In theFY 2002 budget, the estimate for theFY 2005 budget(the last budget of > Bush’s first term) was $2.169 trillion. But by the time this budget was > actually submitted to the Congress on February 2, 2004, it had grown to $2.4 > trillion. It was only ten years ago that the federal budget was about a > trillion dollars less than it is now. Will the federal budget shrink or even > stay the same during the next four years that Bush is in office? The answer > should be quite obvious. The projected budget for FY 2009 is a whopping > $2.853 trillion. > Finding what to cut in the federal budget is not a difficult matter. The > series of LRC articles byJim Gricharon "Cutting the Federal Budget To Prevent > U.S. Bankruptcy" should be required reading for all members of Congress.The > Federal DeficitThe federal deficit is the amount by which the government’s > spending exceeds its revenues for a fiscal year. Clinton had a budget surplus > his last four years in office. When FY 2001 ended during Bush’s first year in > office (9/28/2001), there was a surplus of $127 billion. Bush turned that > into a budget deficit of $157 billion for FY 2002, $375 billion for FY 2003, > and $413 billion for FY 2004. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated > last September thatthe deficit for FY 2005 would be $348 billion.The Federal > DebtThe federal debt is the total of all the deficits and surpluses that the > federal government runs each year. The daily change in the debt can be seen > on the website of the Treasury Department’sBureau of the Public Debt. At the > time of Bush’s first inauguration in 2001, the federal debt stood at > $5,727,776,738,304.64. At the time of his second inauguration on January 20, > 2005, the federal debt stood at $7,613,772,338,689.34. Thus, the federal debt > increased almost $2 trillion under the first four years of Bush’s reign. The > federal debt at the end of the last three fiscal years is as follows:Fiscal > YearFederal Debt > > FY 2002$6,228,235,965,597.16 > > FY 2003$6,783,231,062,743.62 > > FY 2004$7,379,052,696,330.32 > > As anyone with high credit card balances knows, maintaining a high debt level > costs a lot of money in the form of interest payments. The interest expense > for the last three fiscal years is as follows:Fiscal YearInterest Expense > > FY 2002$332,536,958,599.42 > > FY 2003$318,148,529,151.51 > > FY 2004$321,566,323,971.29 > > The interest expense for the first three months of FY 2005 (Oct., Nov., & > Dec.) was $120,248,160,823.07. The interest expense on this massive debt is > the third largest expense in the federal budget.The Federal > BureaucracyAccording to theFY 2005 budget, the estimated total of executive > branch full-time equivalent (FTE) federal employees (excluding postal > employees) at the end of FY 2005 is 1,875,000. This is up substantially from > the number of 1,737,000 at the end of FY 2001. The federal bureaucracy mainly > consists of the executive branch departments, the offices under the Executive > Office of the President (EOP), and other assorted federal agencies and > commissions.Executive Branch DepartmentsWhen Bill ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
