Bush Borrowed More Than All Previous Presidents Combined, Group Says

[bascule]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200511/NAT20051104b.html

 

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush and the current administration have borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 presidents combined, a group of conservative to moderate Democrats said Friday.

 

Blue Dog Coalition, which describes itself as a group "focused on fiscal responsibility," called the administration's borrowing practices "astounding."

 

According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion.

 

"The seriousness of this rapid and increasing financial vulnerability of our country can hardly be overstated," said Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), a leader of the Blue Dog Coalition and member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

 

"The financial mismanagement of our country by the Bush Administration should be of concern to all Americans, regardless of political persuasion," said Tanner in a press release.

 

Earlier this year, the Blue Dog Coalition unveiled a 12-step plan to "cure" the nation's "addiction to deficit spending." It included requiring all federal agencies to pass clean audits, a balanced budget, and the establishment of a rainy day fund for use in emergencies specifically a natural disaster.

 

"No American political leadership has ever willfully and deliberately mortgaged our country to foreign interests in the manner we have witnessed over the past four years," said Tanner. "If this recklessness is not stopped, I truly believe our economic freedom as American citizens is in great jeopardy."

[Pangloss]

I saw this yesterday and was a bit annoyed by it. They make it sound like the President calls banks around the world and signs off on these loans personally. It's ABB band-wagoning of the worst sort.

 

The budgetary process involves congress as well, and in fact they are the usual source of pork, not the president. That congress is dominated by Republicans at the moment, so it would be at least logically reasonable to blame the current budgetary mess on Republicans. Why they didn't follow that line is a political strategy that I'm still trying to figure out, but it might have something to do with defense of the Legislative branch, I don't know.

 

I have some questions about their numbers, but they're just questions, not criticisms, because I don't have enough information on it. The budget deficit was something like $400 billion, not $1.05 trillion. They only thing I can figure is they're adding up some kind of cumulative total, but I haven't read their actual report so I'm not sure.

[bascule]

The budgetary process involves congress as well, and in fact they[/i'] are the usual source of pork, not the president. That congress is dominated by Republicans at the moment, so it would be at least logically reasonable to blame the current budgetary mess on Republicans. Why they didn't follow that line is a political strategy that I'm still trying to figure out, but it might have something to do with defense of the Legislative branch, I don't know.

 

Well, two things:

 

1. The executive branch writes the budget. When Congress is finished amending it, the President signs it. The Executive has both the first and last say on spending.

 

2. Bush has never vetoed a bill. He's the one you supposed to have to answer to in terms of overspending, but so far he's never even bothered to broach the issue.

 

Who's supposed to control a corporation's budget, the Board of Directors, or the CEO/CFO? (of course this analogy doesn't quite hold as Congress doesn't exactly have a vested profit-oriented interest, but you get the picture)

[Pangloss]

Um, no. The president has *zero* say on spending outside of the executive branch's budget once it's procured from congress. The House of Representatives controls all spending ("appropriations").

 

The executive branch submits a budget *proposal*. That's it. That's all it is, end of story. It's purely a matter of political convenience, because of the veto. That submission is generally viewed as the start of the budgetary process. The construction and content of the budget is *entirely* within the purvue of the legislative branch.

 

The president's only control over it whatsoever is the single, master veto, which as you pointed out, has never been exersized by this president.

 

So who's actually to blame for the deficit, the person who suggested a budget that was only slightly in arears, or the 535 members of congress who porked it into a fiscal nightmare?

[FreqWhenSee]

Hmmmm, is facism real? The elite leveraging their "good 'ole boy's" network to use the nation's finances for personal control? Noooooo, not in America