'Big Government' Getting Bigger Under Bush

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

'Big Government' Getting Bigger Under Bush

Reuters
Friday, September 5, 2003; 9:00 AM

By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The era of big government, if it ever went away, has returned full-throttle under President Bush, who came to office championing "conservative ideas" as an alternative.

A report released on Friday by the Brookings Institution think tank and New York University said the "true size" of the federal work force -- which includes employees for federal contractors and grant recipients -- grew by more than one million, to 12.1 million, from October 1999 to October 2002.

The increase was linked to the war on terrorism that Bush launched after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, as well as to growth at the Department of Health and Human Services and other domestic agencies, the report said.

The growth represents a roughly 75 percent rebound from federal work force declines linked to the post-Cold War "peace dividend," which helped enable former President Bill Clinton to declare in 1996 that "the era of big government is over."

"We are now at the end of an era: of the 'end of the era of big government,' said study author Paul Light, who is affiliated with Brookings and NYU. "We've got a big mission to deliver in this country."

Said White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, "The president's priorities are that government gets results for the people, and he is focused on protecting Americans, winning the war on terrorism, and ensuring economic security."

LONG-TIME PRACTICE

According to the report, the federal work force grew in all areas except for the civil service as the Bush administration strived to limit the visibility of an expanding government by shifting work to contractors and grant recipients.

This has been a practice under administrations going back to the 1960s, Light said. "I don't have a problem with a government this big," he said. "But we ought to be honest" about the true scale of the government's role.

The civil service declined by 46,000 jobs from 1999 to 2002, while the number of jobs at federal contractors grew by 727,000 and at grant recipients by 333,000.

Although the military added only 70,000 people in uniform, the government created about 500,000 new defense-related jobs, starting late in Clinton's presidency.

"The Bush administration has put the pedal to the metal in terms of defense spending," Light said.

The federal role has also increased in other areas, most notably education where Bush legislation on student testing and teacher qualification has created a huge "unfunded mandate" for states and local districts, Light said.

Bush in his 2000 presidential campaign ran as a champion of a minimal federal role.

"Big government is not the answer," he said in his nomination acceptance speech. "The alternative ... is to put conservative values and conservative ideas into the thick of the fight for justice and opportunity."

But Light said the rising U.S. population makes it inevitable that the government will continue to grow.


© 2003 Reuters
###

[The One and Only...]

No shit, sherlock. Bush is a neocon: let no one tell you otherwise.

Worst aspects of conservatism + liberalism = neocon.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Thanks for the retort Watson, but I mainly posted this for our conservative friends on the board, not my own education (which would make posting it sort of a redundant activity, don't ya think?). :/

In response to your post, I'd say Bush is less of a neo-con, and more of a "big government conservative" (oxymoron perhaps) who is at the submission of the so-called "neo-cons." Afterall, W. is considered to be far more of a traditional conservative than his father was, and he creates this myth of himself through subtle things. He has at least rhetorically embraced conservatism every chance he gets publicly, he goes home for vacations in Crawford, Texas, holds press conferences from his ranch wearing cowboy boots and a snappy belt buckle, etc.

He tries to behave in a stereotypicaly "conservative" fashion, so in order to maintain his appeal with the southern vote he will need to carry again in 2004. But in reality, the government is probably bigger under him than it was under Clinton, and he has made greater steps towards a single-payer health system in the past few months than Bill Clinton could do in 8 years.

[The One and Only...]

That's more or less what I mean, but I said it rather bluntly. Personally, I think he's just a neocon hiding as a conservative rather than simply being a "big government conservative".

For all his negative tendencies, I would say he has done fairly well. Or, at least, fairly well compared to the image of him proposed by the DNC.

[O71394658]

I wouldn't call this the best thing in the world, but in light of what happened during his Presidency, it's understandable. :/

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Now wait a second, so that means you agree with expansive measures of government during times of national distress? I would assume you're a big fan then of FDR and his New Deal policies....?

[O71394658]

Maybe.

[KevinTheOmnivore]