As we are coming up on the elections, I want to air the grievance that has bothered me the most about our last eight years of government. This isn’t something that any of the candidates are talking about much, largely I fear because they plan to continue the alarming trend towards governmental and fiscal irresponsibility.
As of April 2008, The US National deficit stood at $9.5 trillion. When President George W Bush’s administration took control in January of 2001, the deficit was $1.2 trillion. Staggering! While small, modest national debts are actually good things for governments, this has gotten out of hand. Just prior to Bush’s election, the nation had recorded a series of record budget surpluses, and the economic forecast looked rosy. Bush had based his campaign promises on the likely continuation of strong economic conditions. The three heads of his campaign promise monster were cutting taxes, strengthening national defense, and adding prescription drug benefits to Medicare. In 2000 these were reasonable promises, and spending the almost embarrassingly large surplus was an important priority. Almost immediately after Bush took control, post 9/11 America greatly changed the reality of the situation. In one year, a $127 billion surplus became a $158 deficit. While some spending was necessary in anti terrorism measures, and economic stimulus, the administration failed to adjust spending and the programs needed by the nation in accordance with prevailing conditions, and worse, our government fell in love with spending irresponsibly.
A few examples will highlight the fiscal mess our capital has become. In Dec 2001 a $60 billion transportation bill past that most of us remember as an airline bailout. That portion of the bill was needed, but much of the spending in the bill was political “pork” – that is spending on Congressmen’s pet programs for constituents. The bill passed almost unanimously with a blind eye turned to the bill’s latter half. Worse was to come. Congress approved a bill for $250 billion in spending on agricultural subsidies that reversed earlier legislation to scale back government involvement in agriculture. Bush approved $2.35 trillion of tax cuts over ten years, one trillion of which came in his second term, well after the surpluses turned to deficits. Also after the surpluses disappeared, bush approved a $500 billion dollar prescription drug bill, which further cripples our social security and Medicare situation instead of improving it. John McCain actually led a group that tracked the use of “earmarks” which are basically ways congress directs money into congressman’s individual projects – the above mentioned political pork. Some of these projects are probably justifiable and needed; however, they are also notorious for the corruption often involved in their appropriation – this is what the scandal over lobbyists and corruption in 2005 was all about. McCain found that during Clinton’s years there were about 3000 a year. During Bush’s second term, we have seen an astonishing 16,000!
What has caused such irresponsibility? In 2002 the Budget Enforcement act was set to expire. This bill basically ensured that congress used pay as you go methods, and was seen as a bulwark of congressional restraint. It was allowed to expire, and congress has basically had the attitude that deficits don’t matter since. This is tremendous short-sighted political gaming with our nation! The antidote for congressional excess is normally the presidential veto, but Bush has been afraid to use it. In his first six years in the white house he did not veto one bill! Every previous president vetoed dozens of bills, but not Bush. A Whitehouse official stated that the president did not wish to challenge house speaker Dennis Hastert because “He thinks he can control him better by not antagonizing him” so instead he lets him walk all over him and in essence has cost the nation billions of dollars that my taxes will eventually have to pay for, but has also cost us a precious check in our checks and balances system.
What I’m looking for in the 2008 election is some restraint, some control, and some governmental responsibility. Someone willing to look down the road and do what is best not for my political party now, but rather for my nation in the long run. Asking something so simple is unfortunately unrealistic.
As of April 2008, The US National deficit stood at $9.5 trillion. When President George W Bush’s administration took control in January of 2001, the deficit was $1.2 trillion. Staggering! While small, modest national debts are actually good things for governments, this has gotten out of hand. Just prior to Bush’s election, the nation had recorded a series of record budget surpluses, and the economic forecast looked rosy. Bush had based his campaign promises on the likely continuation of strong economic conditions. The three heads of his campaign promise monster were cutting taxes, strengthening national defense, and adding prescription drug benefits to Medicare. In 2000 these were reasonable promises, and spending the almost embarrassingly large surplus was an important priority. Almost immediately after Bush took control, post 9/11 America greatly changed the reality of the situation. In one year, a $127 billion surplus became a $158 deficit. While some spending was necessary in anti terrorism measures, and economic stimulus, the administration failed to adjust spending and the programs needed by the nation in accordance with prevailing conditions, and worse, our government fell in love with spending irresponsibly.
A few examples will highlight the fiscal mess our capital has become. In Dec 2001 a $60 billion transportation bill past that most of us remember as an airline bailout. That portion of the bill was needed, but much of the spending in the bill was political “pork” – that is spending on Congressmen’s pet programs for constituents. The bill passed almost unanimously with a blind eye turned to the bill’s latter half. Worse was to come. Congress approved a bill for $250 billion in spending on agricultural subsidies that reversed earlier legislation to scale back government involvement in agriculture. Bush approved $2.35 trillion of tax cuts over ten years, one trillion of which came in his second term, well after the surpluses turned to deficits. Also after the surpluses disappeared, bush approved a $500 billion dollar prescription drug bill, which further cripples our social security and Medicare situation instead of improving it. John McCain actually led a group that tracked the use of “earmarks” which are basically ways congress directs money into congressman’s individual projects – the above mentioned political pork. Some of these projects are probably justifiable and needed; however, they are also notorious for the corruption often involved in their appropriation – this is what the scandal over lobbyists and corruption in 2005 was all about. McCain found that during Clinton’s years there were about 3000 a year. During Bush’s second term, we have seen an astonishing 16,000!
What has caused such irresponsibility? In 2002 the Budget Enforcement act was set to expire. This bill basically ensured that congress used pay as you go methods, and was seen as a bulwark of congressional restraint. It was allowed to expire, and congress has basically had the attitude that deficits don’t matter since. This is tremendous short-sighted political gaming with our nation! The antidote for congressional excess is normally the presidential veto, but Bush has been afraid to use it. In his first six years in the white house he did not veto one bill! Every previous president vetoed dozens of bills, but not Bush. A Whitehouse official stated that the president did not wish to challenge house speaker Dennis Hastert because “He thinks he can control him better by not antagonizing him” so instead he lets him walk all over him and in essence has cost the nation billions of dollars that my taxes will eventually have to pay for, but has also cost us a precious check in our checks and balances system.
What I’m looking for in the 2008 election is some restraint, some control, and some governmental responsibility. Someone willing to look down the road and do what is best not for my political party now, but rather for my nation in the long run. Asking something so simple is unfortunately unrealistic.
3 comments:
Amen brother. I think you're right on when you said the candidates aren't mentioning it because they plan to continue down the same path. Both McCain and Obama are promising too much without an explanation of where the money will come from. It would be nice to point a finger at them, but sadly all us credit-card-limit-riding Americans think that spending what we don't have is the way it's done. Somebody help us!
Levi, could you pull some of your political strings to have me appointed as head economic advisor? no one would like me, but I would slash spending left and right!
I could not have written it better myself. Republicans say they don't want to spend money--then they do, democrats spend money and promise they will spend more. Who will be the one to actually spend less on pork? I would only add one addendum to your article which is that Bush has now (this year) after years of presidency announced that he will veto every bill that does not reduce pork barrel spending by 50%. He should have said this long ago and then done it. Economic understanding it one of the most important qualities of a good president. I don't know when we will see a candidate that has better economic understanding than Mitt Romney, I mean his claim to fame is that he fixes corrupt and inefficient programs (The Olympics) and makes them profitable!!! Spending is to congress and the hydra was to Hercules of old, whenever we cut off a major head two larger will grow in its place!
Post a Comment