CampaignPromisesLost2-8-01pg1

Campaign Promises and Lost Opportunities: A new administration.

George W. Bush campaigned on the �lost opportunities� of the Clinton Administration and a very select few issues. He, rightly so, pointed to many of the promises that the Clinton Administration failed to deliver, like a middle class tax cut. He also campaigned on his �integrity� and the lack of the same �integrity� of the Clinton White House. However, while President Bush is pursuing education reform and tax cuts that he promised, he seems to be failing to deal with the promises of limited government and funding for the military.

Bush�s campaign went heavily after military and former military support for votes. In doing so, he promised $50 billion for the military. Of that $50 billion, $1 billion was to go to salary increases, as Bush himself stated in 1999 on the campaign trail. The Bush campaign pointed to the military being overextended and under funded. Bush said it was time to bring soldiers home and deal with the issues of soldiers on food stamps, as well as replenish the military�s shortcomings in terms of equipment. He pointed to the inability to fight a two-front war, the scavenging for parts, and the shortages of supplies like missiles. All of this pointed to an increase in military spending to shore up the military, increase moral, and take care of our soldiers in uniform. What happened since the election and debates where he made those promises and claims?

Bush went after Al Gore and the democrats for their flaw searching in military ballots by apparently standing up for the military as a special class of Americans because they were willing to give their lives for America and what America stands for. With all of that rhetoric, why did Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld say the Bush Administration�s military budget would be the same size and scope as the previous Clinton Administration�s military budget?

The current Bush strategy is to say the military needs to be reviewed before any new money is spent there. However, considering a former Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, was his running mate and they apparently had so much military information about the flaws in the military, one would think Bush would already have a good idea of what needed to be fixed. In the campaign and debates, he and Cheney both sounded like they knew what needed to happen. Wouldn�t they have to know to make all the statements they made? What else needs to be known to resolve some of these issues? American soldiers on food stamps? The answer was supposed to be a $1 billion pay raise. Scavenging for part would seem to imply that new parts should be bought to most people. Shortages of missiles might tell people that missiles needed to be bought and built. An over extended military might imply that soldiers needed to be brought home. Bush even specifically said that soldiers needed to be brought home in the second debate. Why aren�t they coming home yet?

All of this points to a few conclusions. First, either Bush lied about the horrible problem of soldiers on food stamps or he has decided their plight is not worth the money he promised them. Second, either he lied about a shortage of parts or he has decided there is not a significant shortage to put money into replacing those parts, or he doesn�t really care that much about the military now that he is the president. Third, either there is not a true shortage of missiles or he doesn�t feel the military needs missiles, which means he misrepresented that shortage, or he just doesn�t care enough to replace them. Fourth, either he lied about pulling back soldiers from places they shouldn�t be or he doesn�t care about those soldiers safety as much as the political will it will take to pass his political agenda. If you notice, some of his agenda seems to have disappeared, why?

President Bush campaigned on limited government as opposed to larger government that Al Gore proposed. Even in the Republican Party platform, the talk of limited government and spending cuts appears. John F. Cogan, a budget analyst for the Hoover Institute, who is currently helping President Bush craft his budget, says that President Bush�s budget must have spending cuts to support the tax cuts he is proposing. With all of this, why aren�t we hearing about any spending cuts? Where are the cuts? Is the goal to put forth enough legislation that the media and public cannot possibly cover it all and the cuts slip by without any public evaluation? Some might think that with the Republican Party in control of congress in terms of votes and the White House, spending cuts would be automatic? However, they appear to be anything but automatic.

Even with republicans controlling congress from 1994 to 2001, we have seen the federal budget grow to $1.8 trillion dollars or about one quarter the size of the GDP. The scary part of this is that without any new spending, the federal budget is estimated to average between $2.8 and $3 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Where is all that money coming from? How could that be true with the �limited government� republicans in power and setting the future pace for spending in the current budgets? Do we really want government to be 30% or more of the GDP of America? Where is the fiscal responsibility and limited government the republicans have been preaching? The reality is that from 1994 to 2000, government spending has increased. The only thing balancing the budget is the increase in tax revenue that has outpaced spending.

1 2