Hurricane Costs Send Budget Projections Deeper into the Red

Offsetting the cost of rebuilding is all the more important because the rebuilding effort follows a 33 percent expansion of the federal government since 2001, a period that saw:

* The 2001 No Child Behind Act, the most expensive education bill in American history, which led to a 100 percent increase in education spending;
* The 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, the most expensive farm bill in American history;
* The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, the most expensive Great Society expansion in history;
* A war in and the rebuilding of Iraq that, while justified, could cost between $300 and $600 billion, in total;
* International spending leap 94 percent;
* Housing and Commerce spending surge 86 percent;
* Community and regional development spending jump 71 percent;
* Health research spending increase 61 percent;
* Veterans’ spending increase 51 percent; and
* The number of annual pork projects leap from 6,000 to 14,000.

I don't get it . . .

Democrats: Tax & Spend
Republicans: Spend

"33 percent expansion of the federal government since 2001"?!?! I thought Republicans wanted less big gov't. I'm sure someone in here can clear this up for me.

I think it's just a matter of no one is really leading the party into fiscal responsibility. I think Bush would like to be tighter with money. But, he has just flatten out gotten caught up in situations he strongly believes you should spend serious money to get out of. Now, I've for years thought Bush was a zealot, so maybe he has a predilection for belief in these type of things. I've just been glad he's been a zealot about the same things I'm a zealot about.

Each one of those line items has a story behind it.

The No Child Behind Act was a big thing he ran for president in 2000 on. And, getting it past was a huge thing where it looked like he was going to be very bi-partisan, and work together with the Democrats. However, after it was passed, the Democrats then blamed him for not spending enough on the act. So, if a lot of the Democrats had been president, more would have been spent on No Child Behind.

The Medicare Modernization Act I believe is the thing where they gave prescription drug benefits to the elderly. Dick Morris claimed Bush was using a political he invented called triangulation in getting that passed. A prescription drug benefit was a big issue for many democrats. In 2004, you might would have gotten a democrat elected if he didn't do that. And, you still would have the program and the money spent anyway.

The recent federal highway bill isn't mentioned in that list, but it was a big pork bill and that list does mention pork. The federal highway bill has an estimated cost of $85 billion. Bush actually played politics with that bill saying he would sign nothing over that, they were saying at the time that they thought the bill was going to cost $200 billion. And, so the Bush administration declared a victory saying look how much we got it down.

I basically think the overreaching problem has been no strong leadership towards fiscal responsibility. Bush came into an office faced with a recession. He believed money should be spent to get out of it. 9/11 happened, Bush believed you've got to go to war to prevent future attacks like that. Katrina happened, and now Bush believes you've got to spend money to get out of this. You can argue how the money was spent in all of these things, but I do think that money had to be spent.

I just think it's the way things have been going, people have been spending a lot of money. So, it's hard to cut down around the edges when some senator wants money spent for something else. Am just guessing it's a cycle.

Good answer!