We may as well get this right out there: I'm not pro-Bush.
My post was regarding the scope you've defined. You've cited the problem: balooning government spending; to be more specific: a growing federal deficit.
Firstly, you're making the problem seem more drastic than it really is, and you're implying Bush's spending as the cause for both. I also think you know what you're doing.
The deficit is roughly $375 billion, if my figures are correct. Lets calculate in a few things:
1.) The war in Iraq is going to pay for itself, but it still incurred $80 billion of the deficit. Therefore, that 80 billion is really false debt, in fact it should be calculated as a profit, but I won't do that. So, take away that 80 billion ($375 - $80 = $295).
2.) From FY2000->FY2001, individual income tax revenue alone fell by about $100 billion. I haven't been able to find out how much it fell in 2002 and 2003, much less total tax revenues for those respective years, but I'm sure it fell significantly. It's plenty safe to say that total tax revenue has fallen at least $200 billion since 2000. And that's a very conservative estimate, in my opinion. So take away that ($295 - $200 = $95).
(On a sidenote: I really wish those pricks at the IRS would store their tax info in something other than excel spreadsheets. There is something really lame about a government agency publishing its reports in a proprietary format.)
3.) Bush was thrust into a situation where he had to face terrorism. Clinton might have had the luxury of being able to ignore the rise of anti-american terrorism, but after 9/11 Bush could not. The dep. of homeland security alone is costing about $30 billion a year. ($95 - $30 = $65).
5.) Bush's plan to stimulate the economy has not been free. His tax cuts have increased private-sector spending, which is going to start showing in tax revenues. A stimulated economy is already paying it's dividends. I think it's safe to say his tax cuts cost more than $65 billion.
So, really, the majority of this deficit consists of either false debt, or unavoidable expenses -- not Bush spending.
Moving on. Lets look at your proposed solution.
On education spending: Clark intends create a universal grant program. $12000 per student. So lets do a rough estimate of the cost of his program since his websit doesn't seem to be putting up any pricetags (I wonder why). There is roughly 16 million Americans in college. So 8 million students * $6000 = 48 billion - 16 billion (for consolidated programs) = 32 billion. His universal preschool will cost about 5 billion. He also intends to spend at least 10 billion in various other funds. (-$47 billion)
On defense spending: Clark intends to add $40 billion to the Dep. of Homeland Security budget. (-93 billion)
On state budgets: Clark intends to add $20 billion to help states balance their budget. He also intends to increase some other socialist programs, like low-income housing, but doesn't put up a pricetag, so I can't calculate them. (-113 billion)
On healthcare spending: He wants to expand veterens healthcare by 2 billion. He also intends to make a monolith of a healthcare system -- the dems have wanted to for quite some time -- and thats going to be expensive. VERY expensive, and will continue to grow more expensive as time goes on. Again, he doesn't put the pricetag on this. (-115 billion)
On job-creation: His "job creation" plan will cost $50 billion. (-165 billion)
Notes: The things I mentioned are just the tip of the Clark iceburg. I don't feel I'm qualified to start projecting his budgets, but they're going to be big if he gets his way.
So, Clark wants to add an additional $165 billion on top of the federal budget. Talk about the anvil that broke the camel's back.
* Clark would still have to deal with the war on terrorism, but I'll be nice and say the costs go down 25% for him (165 + 60 = $225).
* He still gets to pay for the Dep. of H.S. (225 + 30 = $255)
* Again, I'll say Clark is lucky, and say the expense of his programs without pricetags will offset by the cancelation of Bush's tax breaks and rising tax revenues (and they won't).
So, even if the economy keeps up, by my back of the napkin calculations, Clark still gets to dig up $250 billion. Essentially, he either has to cut a lot of programs (that would be fun to watch) or he gets to raise taxes (probably on those evil rich people).
I want to know where he plans to get that money. If he doesn't have the balls to say something unpopular, he doesn't need to be president.
What I think, is that he knows he'd never be able to pass most of this shit. So, he is in a position where he can say "I said we should have ... back in 2005, this isn't my fault" at some point in the future. Just another politician blowing smoke up our collective asses.
Bullshit like Bush, Clark, and Dean is why I don't vote.
And: Clark != answer.
