Wondered this weekend about the 7 1/2 months Pre 9/11 timeline that GWB had (frm Jan 20-Sept 11, 2001) and what some of his policies started out to be.....Found this, FYI...(note that some of it is from GWB and others, and some of it is from Huff n Puff ....) Timeline really is from 2000 forward to 2008
Restore consumer confidence with tax cuts & new oil supplies. (Mar 2001) Despite prosperity, “It’s time for a change” in Washington. (Oct 2000) Prosperity results from entrepreneurship & ingenuity. (Oct 2000) Private sector responsible for economic boom. (Aug 2000) Make budget biennial; reinstate line-item veto; target pork. (Jun 2000) $46B in new spending on health, education, & defense. (Apr 2000) New Prosperity Initiative: remove obstacles to advancement. (Apr 2000) Simplify tax code to stimulate economic growth. (Apr 1999) Budget Deficit
Proposes to shrink federal budget to 16% of GDP. (Mar 2001) Cut national debt by $2T in 10 years; leave $1.2T in debt. (Feb 2001) Too much government spending will end prosperity. (Nov 2000) http://www.ontheissues.org/george_w__bush.htm
George W. Bush on Budget & Economy
President of the United States, Former Republican Governor (TX)
Sub-sections under Budget & Economy:
Budget Deficit Other issues under Budget & Economy 2008 TARP bailouts: Bear-Stearns; Fannie Mae; AIG
In mid-2007, financial companies wrote down billions in mortgage-related assets. In Jan. 2008, we hammered out a plan to provide temporary tax incentives to create jobs & boost consumer spending. I was hopeful we could dodge a recession. I was wrong. The foundation was weakening, and the house of cards was about to come tumbling down.
In March, we learned that Bear-Stearns was overexposed. I was surprised by the sudden crisis. The Fed lent $30 billion against Bear's undesirable mortgage holdings. Many denounced the move as a bailout. In September, we laid out a plan to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into government conservatorship. On Sep. 15, we allowed Lehman Brothers to file for bankruptcy. Legislators praised our decision not to intervene. The stock market was not so positive. The NY Fed lent AIG $85 billion in return for 79% of AIG's shares.
On Sep. 18 we launched a new lending vehicle to restart the commercial paper market--the initiative that would become known as TARP. Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.452-458 Nov 9, 2010
Cut growth of spending each year except DoD, DHS, DVA, & SSA
I took my responsibility to be a good fiscal steward seriously. As a wartime president, I had two priorities: protecting the homeland and supporting our troops, both in combat and as veterans. Beyond those areas, we submitted budgets that slowed the growth of discretionary spending every year of my presidency. For the last five years, my budgets held this spending growth below the rate of inflation--in real terms, a cut.
I worked closely with Congress to meet my spending targets--or, as I called it, the overall size of the pie. I didn't always agree with how Congress divvied up the pieces.
It is fair to debate those policy choices, but here are the facts : The combination of tight budgets and the rising tax revenues resulting from economic growth helped drive down the deficit from 3.5% of the GDP in 2004 to 2.6% in 2005, to 1.9% in 2006, to 1.2% in 2007.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.446-447 Nov 9, 2010
Well-being of Main St. directly linked to fate of Wall St.
Regarding TARP, I sympathized with the critics. The last thing I wanted to do was bail out Wall Street. "My friends back home in Midland are going to ask what happened to the free-market guy they knew. They're going to wonder why we're spending their money to save the firms that created the crisis in the first place."
I wished there were some way to hold individual firms to account while sparing the rest of the country. But every economist I trusted told me that was impossible. The well-being of Main Street was directly linked to the fate of Wall Street.
If credit markets remained frozen, the heaviest burdens would fall on American families: steep drops in the value of retirement accounts, massive job losses, and further falling home values. " I understand the frustration of responsible Americans who pay their mortgages on time, and are reluctant to pay the cost of excesses on Wall Street," I said. "But not passing a bill now would cost these Americans much more later."
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.460 Nov 9, 2010
To avoid another crisis: faith in free markets & free trade
I'm asked often is how to avoid another financial crisis. Once the economy is on firm footing, Fannie and Freddie should compete in the mortgage market on a level playing field. Banks should be required to meet sensible capital requirements to prevent overleveraging. And end compensation packages that create the wrong incentives and reward executives for failure.
At the same time, we must be careful not to overcorrect. Overregulation slows investment, stifles innovation, and discourages entrepreneurships. The government should unwind its involvement in the banking, auto, and insurance sectors. And the financial crisis should not become an excuse to raise taxes, which would only undermine the economic growth required to regai our strength.
Above all, our country must maintain our faith in free markets, free enterprise, and free trade. Democratic capitalism, while imperfect and in need of rational oversight, is by far the most successful economic model ever devised.
Source: Decision Points, by Pres. George W. Bush, p.471 Nov 9, 2010
OpEd: Bush free-market fundamentalism was defective theory
In 2008, despite the fact that many banks, car companies, and so on would be defunct without government intervention, the free-market fundamentalists continue to live in denial, trying to convince the world that if only left alone, free markets would fre themselves.
Free-market fundamentalism didn't fail because our leaders didn't execute it well enough. In fact, during his time in office (until the economic house of cards finally collapsed at the end of his presidency) Pres. Bush and his team did a bang-up job executing a defective theory. The problem isn't just the bathwater; the baby itself is rotten.
Even Alan Greenspan finally saw the light, saying in Oct. 2008 that he "made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of banks were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders."
Many, including Bush, lay the blame on a few rotten apples: "Wall Street got drunk." He said. Maybe so, but who made the Bush years a nonstop happy hour and kept serving up the drinks?
Source: Third World America, by Arianna Huffington, p. 51 Sep 2, 2010
OpEd: "Ownership Society" inflated housing bubble
It wasn't a sudden spike in irresponsibility on the part of middle-class Americans [that caused the] struggles of the [housing crisis]. It was an inevitable by-product of tricks and traps deliberately put in place to maximize profits.
Let's start with the bursting of the housing bubble and the foreclosure crisis that followed. That bubble was no accident. Fueling the boom was the development of securitized mortgages--including collateralized debt obligations (CDOs)--in which mortgages of varying degrees of risk were bundled together. The Fed did its part, too, contributing extremely low-interest rates and lax oversight.
George W. Bush and the GOP also helped inflate the bubble by pushing to dismantle some of the barriers to homeownership-- part of Bush's vision of "an ownership society" that sought to, as he put it in his second inaugural address, "give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country." The road to hell continues to be paved with good intentions.
Source: Third World America, by Arianna Huffington, p. 63-65 Sep 2, 2010
2001: Warned of problems with Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac
On July 28, 2005, the Senate Banking Committee passed a bill to regulate more closely Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. In April 2001, the Bush administration had warned Congress of problems: They were highly leveraged, meaning as little as 1.3% to 2% decline in housing values could wipe the companies out. Failure could cause huge repercussions on financial markets, affecting not just their shareholders and the housing sector but companies and economic activity across the board.
Our bill would have subjected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the kinds of federal regulation that banks, credit unions, and savings loans have to comply with. No Democrat supported it. The economic danger didn't faze Fannie or Freddie's congressional allies, who ranted at Bush officials who testified on the need for reform.
When Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae collapsed at the end of 2008, after housing values had dropped 12.8% since 2006, they were the accelerant that turned a minor economic downturn into a worldwide calamity.
Source: Courage and Consequence, by Karl Rove, p.410-413 Mar 9, 2010
OpEd: weak budget negotiator against Democrats
The Republican Revolution of 1994 initially proved to be a good counterbalance to Clinton's attempt to expand government. Republicans generally worked together in the House when Clinton was President, but Republicans in the Senate were willing to go along with high levels of spending. Unfortunately the good economy and balanced budget created an excuse to increase spending dramatically.
The second President Bush had some good ideas, but he turned out to be a weak negotiator with the Democrats. Wasteful spending and earmarks expanded dramatically under Bush II and the Republican majority. The Bush tax cuts pulled the economy out of recession, but government spending and debt increased to historic levels. The number of Americans who were dependent on some government service reached the highest level in history. I began to question if President Bush and the Republican leadership shared my sense of urgency to stop America's slide toward socialism.
Source: Saving Freedom, by Jim DeMint, p. 23-24 Jul 4, 2009
OpEd: Blamed Wall Street bailout on others, but spent $1T
Just before the pivotal election in 2008, Pres. Bush and Secretary Paulson convinced Congress to pass a Wall Street bailout bill giving the Treasury Department nearly a trillion dollars (all borrowed) to buy up bad loans clogging up the credit markets. The explanation for this massive intrusion into the private markets was too complicated for almost anyone to understand, but Americans instinctively knew something was desperately wrong with this plan. They blamed Bush, McCain, and the Republicans in Congress.
The result was a bloodbath for Republicans in the 2008 election and the installation of a powerful majority of Democrats who believed they were elected with a mandate to expand government regulation and control of the financial market. Democrats believed the financial and economic crisis was caused by deregulation and a failure of capitalism. They are now working to further centralize government power over the financial markets in the US and internationally.
Source: Saving Freedom, by Jim DeMint, p.119 Jul 4, 2009
Priorities: balance budget; stop earmarks; fix entitlements
I want to discuss 3 economic reforms that deserve to be priorities for this Congress.
1. We must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is impose spending discipline. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009--and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years.
2. The time has come to end the practice of earmarks. So let us expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress; and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half.
3. To keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience--yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act. So let us work together and do it now. With enough good sense and good will, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid--and save Social Security.
Source: 2007 State of the Union address to Congress Jan 23, 2007
FactCheck: Deficit is increasing substantially this year
The President proposed cutting $14 billion worth of programs and said this would keep the US “on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.” Not mentioned is that the deficit is going up this year. It was $317 billion in the fiscal year that ended last Oct. 30, and actually cut this category, and that is correct. The decline is projected to be 0.5%.
Overall federal spending is up 42% under Bush, and CBO projects further upward pressure on spending, including rising interest rates pushing up the cost of servicing the swelling national debt, and rising medical costs and Bush’s new prescription drug benefit pushing up the cost of Medicare. (Neither item is counted in the “discretionary” category).
Source: FactCheck analysis of 2006 State of the Union speech Feb 1, 2006
FactCheck: Overall spending increased 42% under Bush
The President, speaking of being “good stewards of tax dollars,” focused on one small part of the budget and did not mention rapid growth in overallfederal spending that has taken place under his tenure. He said “we’ve reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending,” which is true. However, that category accounts for only about 16% of the whole federal budget, and it too has grown, though not as rapidly as other categories. Bush said bills were passed last year that would Keeping America competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars. Every year of my presidency, we’ve reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending. This year my budget will cut it again, and reduce or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities. By passing these reforms, we will save the American taxpayer another $14 billion next year, and stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.
Source: 2006 State of the Union speech Feb 1, 2006
Spending cuts will reduce deficit to half by 2009
Keeping America competitive requires us to be good stewards of tax dollars. Every year of my presidency, we’ve reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending. This year my budget will cut it again, and reduce or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities. By passing these reforms, we will save the American taxpayer another $14 billion next year, and stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.
Source: 2006 State of the Union speech Jan 31, 2006
Protectionists want to escape competition
In a dynamic world economy, we are seeing new competitors like China and India. And this creates uncertainty, which makes it easier to feed people’s fears. So we’re seeing some old temptations return. Protectionists want to escape competition, pretending that we can keep our high standard of living while walling off our economy. Others say that the government needs to take a larger role in directing the economy, centralizing more power in Washington and increasing taxes.
Source: 2006 State of the Union Address Jan 31, 2006
Cut non-security discretionary spending every year
Every year of my presidency, we’ve reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending, and last year you passed bills that cut this spending. This year, my budget will cut it again and reduce or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities. By passing these reforms, we will save the American taxpayer another $14 billion next year and stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.
Source: 2006 State of the Union Address Jan 31, 2006
Confront the larger challenge of entitlements spending
We must also confront the larger challenge of mandatory spending, or entitlements. This year, the first of about 78 million baby boomers turn 60, including two of my dad’s favorite people, me, and Bill Clinton. This milestone is more than a personal crisis. It is a national challenge. The retirement of the baby boom generation will put unprecedented strains on the federal government. By 2030, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone will be almost 60% of the entire federal budget.
Source: 2006 State of the Union Address Jan 31, 2006
Limit discretionary spending; cut 150 non-essential programs
I will send [Congress] a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results or duplicate current efforts or do not fulfill essential priorities.
Source: 2005 State of the Union Speech Feb 2, 2005
Pay-as-you-go means you pay, he goes and spends
Q: You pledged that you would not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 a year. How can you keep that pledge without running this country deeper into debt?
KERRY: I’ll tell you exactly how I can do it: by reinstating what Pres. Bush took away, which is called “pay as you go.” During the 1990s, we had pay-as-you-go rules. If you were going to pass something in the Congress, you had to show where you are going to pay for it and how. Pres. Bush is the only president in history to [rescind pay-as-you-go]. I’m going to reverse that. We’re going to restore the fiscal discipline we had in the 1990s.
BUSH: I’ll tell you what PAYGO means, when you’re a senator from Massachusetts, PAYGO means: You pay, and he goes ahead and spends. He’s proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending, and yet the so-called tax on the rich raises $800 billion by his account. There is a tax gap. And guess who usually ends up filling the tax gap? The middle class.
Source: [Xref Kerry] Third Bush-Kerry Debate, in Tempe Arizona Oct 13, 2004
Bush ties growing economy to his tax cuts
Bush noted that a record 68 percent of Americans own their own homes. He also cited relatively low inflation and a rise in manufacturing. “Our economy is growing,” said Bush. “It’s strong and getting stronger.” Bush tied what he described as a growing economy to his series of tax cuts -- including a boost in the child tax credit and breaks for small businesses -- and he called on Congress to make them permanent.
Source: CNN.com Mar 26, 2004
Investment and aid to states will help economy rebound
Encouraging job-creating investment in America’s businesses by providing dividend and capital gains tax relief and giving small businesses incentives to grow and providing $20 billion in aid to States for necessary services
Source: Campaign website, www.georgewbush.com Aug 29, 2003
Provides assistance to new small businesses
Every small business owner who purchases equipment to grow and expand will get assistance through an increase in the expensing limits from $25,000 to $100,000.
Source: Campaign website, www.georgewbush.com Aug 29, 2003
Reframed Clinton from economic prosperity to moral failing
Bush’s first challenge [at the 2000 Convention] was to explain why voters should vote against incumbents after eight years of prosperity. The Democrats had lost in 1984 & 1988 by denying that the prosperity of the 80s was real. Bush avoided that mistake. He acknowledged the prosperity-and then changed the subject to the moral failings of the people who had presided over it. “For 8 years, the Clinton/Gore administration has coasted through prosperity. And the path of least resistance is always downhill. But America’s way is the rising road.... My generation tested limits-and our country, in some ways, is better for it. At times, we lost our way. But we are coming home.“ Conservatives had attacked the baby boomers for producing Bill Clinton; Bush sorrowfully reproached Clinton for betraying the boomers. ”Our current president embodied the potential of a generation. So many talents. So much charm. Such great skill. But, in the end, to what end? So much promise, to no great purpose.“
Source: The Right Man, by David Frum, chapter 1 Jun 1, 2003
Restore consumer confidence with tax cuts & new oil supplies
First things first. We’ve got to restore consumer confidence. We can help in Washington by returning tax money to the people who pay the bills this year. We can restore investor confidence by building a better business environment for years to come, starting with having a realistic, sound energy policy -- a policy that says, of course, we can conserve better, but we need to aggressively seek new supplies. We need an aggressive, forward-thinking energy policy that balances the needs of our environment with the needs of the people of the country.
We can also help by having a world of free trade. One of the concerns is if the economy were to slow down like ours, the protectionist sentiments around America might start bubbling to the surface. Ours is an administration dedicated to free trade. Free trade is good for America. And, finally, we need to have lower taxes, instead of bigger government.
Source: White House speech to high-tech leaders Mar 28, 2001
Despite prosperity, “It’s time for a change” in Washington
Bush said despite that current prosperity, “It’s time for a change” in Washington. “Some say [the economy] is doing pretty well - well it may be,” he said. But “People need more money in their pocket, as far as I’m concerned.” Presenting a Tampa family, he said his plan for a tax cut would slice nearly 50 percent off their tax bill, and criticized Gore for planning only smaller cuts.
Source: William March, The Tampa (FL) Tribune Oct 26, 2000
Prosperity results from entrepreneurship & ingenuity
BUSH (to Gore): I think the economy has meant more for the Gore and Clinton folks than the Gore and Clinton folks has meant for the economy. I think most of the economic growth that has taken place is a result of ingenuity and hard work and entrepreneurship. And that’s the role of government, is to encourage that.
GORE: I think that the American people deserve credit for the great economy that we have. And it’s their ingenuity. I agree with that. But they were working pretty hard eight years ago, and they had ingenuity eight years ago. The difference is, we’ve got a new policy. Look, we have gone from the biggest deficits to the biggest surpluses; we’ve gone from a triple dip recession during the previous 12 years to a tripling of the stock market. Instead of high unemployment, we’ve got the lowest African-American and lowest Latino unemployment rates ever in history, and 22 million new jobs.
Source: (X-ref Gore) Presidential debate, Boston MA Oct 3, 2000
Private sector responsible for economic boom
Bush flatly rejected the contention from Clinton and Gore that their economic policies, particularly the 1993 deficit-reduction package that passed Congress solely on Democratic votes, had contributed to the nation’s boom times. “I think the economy has grown really in spite of government. This is an incredible period of time when productivity has been enhanced, not because of any great initiative of government, but because of the ability for entrepreneurs to stake a new claim.”
Source: Ronald Brownstein, LA Times Aug 13, 2000
Make budget biennial; reinstate line-item veto; target pork
“If the discord in Washington never seems to end, it’s because the budget process never seems to end,” Bush said. He decried an environment of “too much polling and not enough decision-making.” Bush proposed revamping the federal budget process to shift from an annual to a biennial exercise and to require the president and Congress to agree on spending targets early in the process, to prevent government shutdowns.
Bush also said he would target wasteful spending by restoring a version of the line-item veto and installing a commission to recommend pork-barrel projects for elimination. [Bush proposes] devoting the off-year in the biennial budget process to examining which government programs should be eliminated.
House and Senate members said Bush’s ideas would get a respectful hearing on Capitol Hill, although proposals requiring Congress to relinquish power over the nation’s purse strings likely would encounter resistance.
Source: Dana Milbane, Washington Post, p. A1 Jun 9, 2000
$46B in new spending on health, education, & defense
George W. Bush may be inventing a different species of politician: a tax-cut-and-spend Republican. So far this week, Bush has proposed new spending that would total about $46 billion over five years, most of it for health care. Yesterday, he recommended a $4.3 billion program, mostly to expand community health services in remote and urban areas. Earlier, he called for $13 billion in new education spending, a defense plan that requires at least $25 billion in new spending--perhaps more. And he’s not through. Aides say Bush will use the coming months to outline more of his domestic policy views and, likely, additional spending for health care and other problems. Democrats say Bush has overestimated the projected surpluses, significantly underestimated the size of his tax cut, and has not factored into his fiscal equation plans to privatize part of the Social Security system and has yet to outline a single significant cut in current spending.
Source: Dan Balz and Terry M. Neal, Washington Post Apr 13, 2000
New Prosperity Initiative: remove obstacles to advancement
I propose a New Prosperity Initiative.... A plan to help remove obstacles on the road to the middle class.... Instead of helping people cope with their need, we will help them to move beyond it. The Initiative focuses on four additional keys to ensuring upward mobility:
§ Increasing Access to the Middle Class
§ Rewarding Work
§ Providing Access to Affordable Health Care
§ Expanding Homeownership
§ Building Savings and Personal Wealth
Source: Fact Sheet: “New Prosperity Initiative/Renewing America” Apr 11, 2000
Simplify tax code to stimulate economic growth
Bush said he would present a plan for a flatter and simpler tax code. He said the principal goal of his tax plan is to stimulate economic growth and productivity. A second goal is to return government surpluses to taxpayers, once ‘basic needs’ of society have been met.
Source: (Cross-ref to Tax Reform) Dan Balz, The Washington Post Apr 25, 1999
George W. Bush on Budget Deficit
Haven’t vetoed any spending bills because we work together
Q: Please explain how the spending you have approved and not paid for is better for the American people than the spending proposed by Kerry.
A: We have a deficit because this country went into a recession. You might remember the stock market started to climb dramatically six months before I came to office, and then the bubble of the 1990s popped. That cost us revenue. Secondly, we’re at war. And I’m going to spend what it takes to win the war, more than just $120 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve got to pay our troops more. We’ve increased money for ammunition and weapons and pay. And homeland security. We went from 10 billion to $30 billion to protect the homeland. And plus we cut taxes for everybody. Everybody got tax relief, so as to get out of the recession. If you raise taxes during a recession, you had the depression. I proposed a plan, detailed budget that shows us cutting the deficit in half by five years. And you’re right, I haven’t vetoed any spending bills because we work together.
Source: Second Bush-Kerry Debate, in St. Louis MO Oct 8, 2004
Will cut the deficit in half in the next 5 years
We should limit the burden of government on this economy by acting as good stewards of taxpayers’ dollars. In two weeks, I will send you a budget that funds the war, protects the homeland and meets important domestic needs, while limiting the growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent. This will require that Congress focus on priorities, cut wasteful spending and be wise with the people’s money. By doing so, we can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.
Source: 2004 State of the Union address to joint session of Congress Jan 20, 2004
Fact Check: Deficit didn’t exist at end of Clinton term
FACTCHECK on the Federal Deficit: The President promised to curb deficit spending, but said nothing about where the deficits come from.
BUSH: We can cut the deficit in half over the next five years.
FACTCHECK: Not mentioned: The projected federal surplus at the end of Bill Clinton’s term have now turned to a projected federal deficit of $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years, due to Bush’s two large tax cuts, large increases in federal spending, and an economic downturn. Also not mentioned: A 12.3% rise in discretionary federal spending last fiscal year followed by a 9% rise this fiscal year, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.
Source: FactCheck.org on the 2004 State of the Union address Jan 20, 2004
Proposes to shrink federal budget to 16% of GDP
A good way to measure the actual size of government is to compare total federal spending to the Gross Domestic Product or GDP. Under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the ratio was about 22% -- the federal budget was 22% of the nation’s GDP. Under President Clinton, the ratio fell to 18%. President George W. Bush’s proposed budget would drop the ratio further to 16%.
Source: National Public Radio News Mar 12, 2001
Cut national debt by $2T in 10 years; leave $1.2T in debt
President Bush’s budget plan will seek to put the nation on a course to pay off $2 trillion of the national debt over the next 10 years, leaving $1.2 trillion of debt at the end of that period. After several years of bipartisan consensus about the desirability of extinguishing as much debt as quickly as possible, with the goal of bringing it to zero in a decade or a little longer, Bush will say that bringing it below $1.2 trillion in that period, much less wiping it out entirely, will be all but impossible.
Bush’s budget plan will conclude that the national debt held by the public. White House officials said their position is not the result of a political or a policy decision, but a reflection of the fact that a portion of the debt in the form of a variety of bonds is not easily redeemable, either because it would be too expensive to do so or because its holders would be unwilling to part with it.
Source: Richard Stevenson, NY Times Feb 27, 2001
Too much government spending will end prosperity
Gore offers an old and tired approach. He offers a new federal spending program to nearly every voting bloc. He expands entitlements, without reforms to sustain them. 285 new or expanded programs, and $2 trillion more in new spending. Spending without discipline, spending without priorities, and spending without an end. Al Gore’s massive spending would mean slower growth and higher taxes. And it could mean an end to this nation’s prosperity.
Source: Speech in Minneapolis, Minnesota Nov 1, 2000
|
