President Putting 'Big' Back in Government

I love how Bush's budget projections understatement of future deficits by not including the full costs of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, and overhauling Social Security, do not seem a problem for the claimed Small Government ideal of GOPers. Isn't it time for the media to refer to the GOP as the party of permanent big deficits?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess8feb08.story

President Putting 'Big' Back in Government
By Janet Hook Times Staff Writer February 8, 2005

WASHINGTON — Even as President Bush proposes significant cuts in healthcare, farm subsidies and other domestic programs, his new budget makes one thing clear about the legacy of his first term in the White House: The era of big government is back.<snip>

Bush is releasing his budget at a time when many fiscal conservatives in his party are dismayed by how much he has allowed federal spending and the deficit to rise during his first term in the White House. This vocal but outnumbered faction of the GOP was furious when, in 2003, Bush signed a big increase in federal farm subsidies and pushed Congress to expand Medicare to cover prescription drug benefits.

In this budget, Bush has moved to placate those critics by restating his promise to cut the deficit in half by 2009; by pledging to abolish or cut spending for 150 programs; and by taking on fast-growing entitlements such as farm subsidies and Medicaid.

But many analysts view those promises with skepticism because, they say, Bush in his first term had a disappointing record of confronting Congress on popular spending programs. He has never vetoed a bill, making him the first president so restrained since James Garfield, who was shot to death after less than a year in office.<snip>

Much of the deficit growth during Bush's first term was the result of four rounds of tax cuts and increases in defense and domestic security programs after the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush and fellow Republicans have argued for the last three years that eliminating the deficit had to take a back seat in the budget because the country was at war and the economy was sagging. Now that the economy has improved and Iraq has elected its own government, the pressure is on Bush to combat the deficit.<snip>

Bush is right in saying that his budget is "very tight" — but only for domestic discretionary programs, which are the ones that Congress controls with annual appropriations bills. That category makes up about 17% of the budget. Those programs would be cut by 1%. But defense would get an increase of almost 5% — bringing its overall growth to 41% since 2001. Spending for domestic security would grow nearly 7% over last year. Medicare is on track to increase by $50 billion, about 17%.

Bush says those selective increases and cuts amount to "setting priorities." Democrats say they confirm their worst fears that the deficit is being used only as a pretext for cutting programs favored by Democrats and their constituencies — such as Amtrak trains, which are particularly popular along the East Coast; Medicaid programs, which serve the poor; and job training programs, which are backed by labor unions.<snip>