According to Tom DeLay as recently as last week, the answer to both your questions is found here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/n...20153-
3878r.htm
------------------------------------
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.
...
"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing.
...
And in what may be a related note, Tom DeLay was caught smoking crack in his Washington office.
------------------------------
So maybe I added that last part, but when I read the article last week, I also went to the Porkbuster website and that was the only conclusion I could reach.
I'm not advocating a balanced budget amendment - the budget needs to stay as one of the tools used to managed the economy - but with both the Federal budget and deficit at all-time highs, I don't see how he can call this a "victory". It's an insult to our intelligence if he thinks that spin is going to be believed.
Bush ran the first time on a smaller-government platform, with a proposal for social services to be moved to the private/non-profit sector. But rather than cut the budget, his party just moved the money elsewhere. So much for Republicans being the party of small government. Vote your displeasure in 2006.
"...but with both the Federal budget and deficit at all-time highs..."
First, the budget has and will always be at a new all time high. That is, as long as the economy and population keep growing there will be a need for more gov't services.
Second, the deficit is not at an all-time high when it is measured against the federal budget and the GDP. Measuring debt without taking into account income is rather pointless. Me being ten million dollars in debt vs. Bill Gates under the same debt load are completely different stories.
the following data is from here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudge.../fy05/
hist.html
The deficit vs. GDP in 2003 was 3.5%, in 2004 it was 4.5% (est.) and 2005 is estimated at 3.0%. Take a look at the early 80's. The deficit/GDP reached 6.0% in 1983 and remained above 5% for the next two years. Do you remember the Depression of the mid-80's? Neither do I. (Table 1.2)
Total gross federal debt vs. GDP is in table 7.1. The story is more frightening than the deficit numbers but hardly the worst we have ever had in post WWII history. Between 1993 and 1996 this ratio was between 66.1% and 67.1%. In 2003 the ratio was 62.4% and the estimates for 2004 and 2005 are 65.3% and 67.5%, respectively.
The best measure of whether our debt is too high is our debt markets and the currency market. Again, not great but not catastrophic. I am more concerned about the level of privater sector debt, specifically household debt.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/re...ebt/
default.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2004/10/
19...facescan05.html
The above is a data on household debt ratios and Greenspan saying why he was not worried as of a year ago. If you want to be worried there is plenty to be worried about but gov't debt is not objectively out of control. A much better thing to complain about is fannie mae buying, and therefore legitimizing, the more exotic forms of interest only and negative amortization loans. The gov't is encouraging speculation in the housing market when it endorses people using their homes as ATMs.
The first link you provide contradicts your first point. The budget/spending has decreased year-to-year numerous times in our nation’s history. What it does demonstrate is that Republicans seem to spend more than Democrats when they get the chance. How is it that they're known as the party of small government?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/co...n/?
id=110007291
As for the second, I agree that measuring debt without taking into account income is rather pointless. But balance sheet accounting tells us that tax receipts are the measure of the government’s income, not GDP. How much money either you or Bill Gates has is irrelevant to the argument if the government is not collecting enough of it to pay their expenses. In terms of real dollars, the national debt is at an all-time high.
In the last 3 years, this Adminstration and Congress have increased spending by ~25%. In the same timeframe, the national debt has increased 27%. In only 3 years.
---------------------------------------
“Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."
"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled." -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.
"The first link you provide contradicts your first point. The budget/spending has decreased year-to-year numerous times in our nation’s history."
My first point addressed your assertion that, "...both the Federal budget and deficit at all-time highs...". This is true but superfluous if looked at in absolute dollars and simply untrue if considered against a more apt measure like vs. GDP. I assumed that you were speaking of absolute dollars. And that your point was factually correct. You chose. Were you correct but superfluous or incorrect.
"What it does demonstrate is that Republicans seem to spend more than Democrats when they get the chance. How is it that they're known as the party of small government?"
Looking at the timing of the spending and certain political realities, the House of Representatives control the pursestrings does not prove a profilgate Republican party. By now, all economists recognize that a balance budget in the face of a recession is foolish. You said, "I'm not advocating a balanced budget amendment - the budget needs to stay as one of the tools used to managed the economy...", and I agree. The major disagreement is how to stimulate the economy-tax cuts or spending increases. But I am getting away from the discussion.
The past three Republican presidents faced recessions in the first term which required a stimulae and lead to higher deficits. Democrats would have reacted the same way under the same conditions and they would have been correct to do so. I think your conclusion that Republicans are imprudent is baseless given the economic conditions at the time.
"But balance sheet accounting tells us that tax receipts are the measure of the government’s income, not GDP."
This might seem a small point but the debt is called the national debt and the people of the US will have to pay it so the correct measure would be against GDP. Although you could make an argument that it should be disposable income.
I would love to see more fiscal responsibility. The better way to go about this is for procedures that discourage waste in govt. like a line item veto, govt. agencies justifying their budgets each year, and term limits for congress.
“You chose. Were you correct but superfluous or incorrect.”
Considering that it was only one sentence, I’m surprised that you found it to be superfluous. Perhaps the conclusion was so obvious that it needed no explanation at all. I would have thought that you'd have taken the completely opposite position that more data was needed to back the assertion. Notwithstanding, I will give you the edge by letting you set the parameters for this issue. Accordingly, I choose to be correct but superfluous. In the future I will attempt to be more succinct and less verbose (oops, more superfluousness), while striving to be just as correct. 
As for the rest, I think we are discussing two different points. You are describing our current ability to manage the burden of the debt compared to previous points in time as measured by the debt-to-GDP ratio while I am lamenting the fact that we are not taking actual steps to reduce it.
17% of the Federal budget goes to interest payments (not principal) on the debt. ~25% of these payments go to foreign countries. So 4.25% of your tax revenue is sent out to places like China and Saudi Arabia as cash in their hands.
The $350 billion we waste servicing the debt this year makes the $40B of pork look minuscule. And we don’t even get the benefit of infrastructure improvements that we would see from many of these pork projects.
I also would like to see more accountability in government, but I suspect it will take a lot more than that to get the deficit under control. It’s the nature of both parties to buy success by spending all they can with the attitude of ‘let the next guy worry about the bills’.
I agree with you when it comes to the idea that the gov't is prone to wasting money. I just disagree that there is a debt problem, at least a gov't debt problem that looms, which we need to solve RIGHT NOW OR ELSE! I have grown immune to doom and gloom rhetoric. I believe the solution must be geared towards removing the congressional incentive to spend money in order to secure reelection. A one time cut in pork is nice but it won't mean anything in the future. A smaller gov't requires that we have a mechanism that will move us towards that goal over 10 or 20 years.
IMO, it starts with term limits. A line item veto for the president should be next. That is all it should take. I don't expect our congress, either Dems or Repubs, to give up this power without a strong public outcry and we are not there yet.
Commenting by HaloScan
