This page was last updated on December 2, 2004.

Big government Republicans; Nikola (Nick) Drobac; Beaver County Times; July 8, 2004.

This letter is an exercise in hypocrisy.  Mr. Drobac criticizes President Bush for increasing big government, yet that is exactly the philosophy Mr. Drobac advocates.

Both Mr. Drobac and I are critical of President Bush for growing government, but for different reasons.  Mr. Drobac wants ever-growing government, he just wants it to grow faster and he wants fellow socialists to do it.  I truly believe in smaller government.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

"In his letter to the editor ('Look beyond war record,' Friday), Rick Whitten wrote that President Bush promotes smaller government and more personal responsibility.

"It's one thing for him to write and say that Bush and the Republicans promote smaller government, but a closer look at the numbers reveals that the Republicans are lying to the American people:

"The federal budget during the last year of the Clinton administration was $1.9 trillion.  The federal budget just proposed by Bush and submitted to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives (responsible for spending) for fiscal year ending October 2005 was $2.4 trillion.

"If passed, annual federal spending will have increased by $500 billion since Bill Clinton left office in January 2001.  This means that Bush and the Republicans have significantly increased the size of the federal government since January 2001."

[RWC] There's no question that, as a Rockefeller Republican, President Bush is not strong on cutting big government.  No true conservative would dispute that.  That said, I believe the increase in big government is nowhere near as bad as it would be with a liberal.

Were the votes completely along party lines?  That is, no Democrats voted for the budgets?  When Senate Democrats don't like something, they filibuster until they get their way.  They didn't filibuster the budgets so we can't pin the whole blame on Republicans.

"The federal government went from an annual budget surplus under Clinton to an annual budget deficit of more than $500 billion under Bush and the Republican-controlled House."

[RWC] It's a lot easier to balance the budget when the economy is in a boom, as it was for much of the 1990s.  President Bush inherited a recession, however, and had to deal with the economic fallout from 9/11.

"At the same time, the national debt swelled from $5.6 trillion under Clinton to a whopping $7.25 trillion under Bush.  The national debt is expected to increase to more than $7.6 trillion sometime after Bush leaves office in January 2005."

[RWC] It's funny that liberals worry about deficits and debt only when Republicans are in control.  Of course, some Republicans exhibit the same behavior.  Mr. Drobac has an incorrect fact.  President Bush won't leave office until 2009.

I'm not in favor of debt and deficits, but I'm not a hypocrite about it.

"All of this the direct result of the Bush and Republican tax cuts for the wealthy in 2001 and 2003."

[RWC] Tax cuts for the wealthy is a tired old lie.  Just about everyone got a tax cut, even people who paid no income tax.

As a result of the Bush tax cuts, the number of income tax filers who paid/will pay no income tax increased from 29,000,000 in 2000 to an estimated 44,000,000 million in 2004, a 50% increase.  When 15,000,000 people at the bottom of the income scale have their income tax cut to zero, and some actually get so-called "refunds," how can you say this was a tax cut only for the wealthy?

In 2001, the top 5% of income earners paid over 53% of federal income tax revenue.  The bottom 50% paid only 3.9%.  Does that sound like a break for the wealthy?  How can any reasonable person claim that the people who pay over 50% of income tax revenue don't deserve a piece of tax cuts?

"Tax cuts do not automatically translate into a smaller government, just a larger debt and deficit."

[RWC] Gee, a liberal who believes tax cuts automatically translate into larger debt and deficit.  What a surprise!  Larger debt and deficits are the result of excess spending.  Cut the spending and you cut debt and deficits.  Unfortunately, that's heresy to Marxists (Democrats) and too many Republicans are afraid to stand up for their principles.

"Fourteen percent of the federal budget is now being used to pay the interest on the national debt, up from 8 percent during the Clinton administration.

"The war on terrorism is only costing this country $225 billion.  Even with the increased spending for the war on terrorism, without the Bush tax cuts we would have had a federal budget surplus."

[RWC] Not true.  Mr. Drobac ignores the effect of the recession that started as former President Clinton left office and the effect of 9/11.  Even if President Bush had merely carried forward the last Clinton budget, we would have had deficits.  Worse, we would have had a deeper and longer recession because of the lack of tax cuts.  The proven cure for a recession is a tax cut, deficits or not.  History shows it time and time again.

Increases in discretionary spending -- excluding defense and homeland security -- were 6%, 5%, 4%, 1% for fiscal years 2002 - 2005, respectively.  In Clinton's last budget, that increase was 15%, 2 1/2 times Bush's largest increase and nearly four times the average!

"It's hard to be more personally responsible when the Republicans are destroying the economic fabric of this country."

[RWC] A Marxist who believes in personal responsibility?  Not likely.  Every stand Mr. Drobac takes favors government over the individual, unless socialists aren't in power.

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.