I've had enough of Bush

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
New budget plan squeezes education, Medicare

Bush’s $2.77 trillion proposal boosts defense spending, cuts other programs

WASHINGTON - President Bush sent Congress a $2.77 trillion budget plan Monday that would make his first-term tax cuts permanent while reducing government-funded programs to deal with exploding budget deficits. Almost a third of the 141 targeted programs are in education.

The plan also calls for an increase in spending on the war against terrorism and a squeeze on Medicare funds.

“My administration has focused the nation’s resources on our highest priority — protecting our citizens and our homeland,” Bush said in his budget message.

The budget blueprint sharply decreases funding for supporting the arts, vocational education, parent resource centers and drug-free schools, and instead puts a heavy emphasis on keeping the country strong militarily. It maps out a way to make first-term tax cuts permanent at a cost of $1.4 trillion over 10 years, and still achieve Bush’s goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009.

Achieving these goals constrained Bush’s efforts to offer new initiatives, although he did put forward a few mostly modest programs to deal with American anxieties about global competition, soaring energy costs and skyrocketing medical bills.

Bush’s spending proposals, contained in four massive volumes featuring green and beige covers, are for the 2007 budget year that begins next Oct. 1. The $2.77 trillion in spending would be up by 2.3 percent from projected spending of $2.71 trillion this year.

All-time-high deficit
The administration in its budget documents said the deficit for this year will soar to an all-time high of $423 billion, reflecting increased outlays for the Iraq war and hurricane relief.

But the administration says the deficits will be on a declining path over the next five years, which would allow the president to achieve his goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, the year he leaves office. However, the deficit of $354 billion that the administration is projecting for 2007 probably will be higher because the budget at present contains only $50 billion in spending for Iraq, White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten told reporters.

Bush is also seeking savings by trimming the growth of spending in Medicare, the government’s giant health care program for the elderly and disabled, by $35.9 billion over five years. The reductions, which are certain to face stiff opposition in Congress, would among other things reduce inflation adjustments for hospitals, nursing homes, home health care providers and hospices.

“These are not cuts,” Bolten said of Bush’s Medicare plans. “These are modest reductions in the rate of growth.”

Democrats attacked what they said were Bush’s skewed priorities. They said he was trying to impose austere budgets that will harm programs for the poor while protecting tax cuts Democrats said were going primarily to the wealthy.

Democrats point to war cost
They also charged that Bush was understating future budget deficits by leaving out major items such as the true costs of the Iraq war and a long-term fix to keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting more middle-class taxpayers.

“It explodes deficits, but then conceals them by providing only five years of numbers and leaving out large costs,” said Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. “The result will be more debt passed on to our children.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that the budget was “filled with pages of giveaways to special interests and cuts to those who can least afford it.”

Responding, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said, “The president is focused on making sure that we keep our economy growing, and that means keeping taxes low.”

Republicans in Congress expressed support for the spending document, which will kick off months of debate likely to last until the next budget year begins in October and perhaps beyond.

“We have to face up to this fiscal reality that this baby boom generation is going to retire soon, and we need to do something about it,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

In addition to trimming Medicare, other proposed Bush savings in so-called mandatory spending, because the payments are set in law for all who are eligible, include $4.99 billion in changes in farm commodity programs and $16.7 billion in reforms of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the government program that backs private pensions.

Money for drilling?
Bush’s budget also projects receiving $4 billion over the next five years for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, something Congress has repeatedly refused to allow.

The biggest spending increase would go to the military, a 6.9 percent rise to $439.3 billion for 2007, a figure that does not include the costs of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration said last week it will ask Congress for an additional $120 billion to cover fighting for the rest of this year and the early part of 2007 while seeking $18 billion more in hurricane relief this year.

While the Department of Homeland Security would also see an increase for 2007, nine of the 15 Cabinet agencies would see outright cuts in their discretionary spending for next year with the biggest percentage reductions occurring in the departments of Transportation, Justice and Agriculture.

$14.5 billion reduction in 141 programs
Bush is proposing to continue a serious squeeze on the one-sixth of the budget outside of defense and homeland security that is subject to annual appropriations. This year he would cut spending in this area by 0.5 percent.

To achieve this goal, Bush is seeking savings of $14.5 billion by eliminating and drastically scaling back 141 government programs. Last year, he targeted 154 such programs and won two-fifths of the spending cuts he requested, amounting to $6.5 billion in savings.

Even programs not targeted for elimination are subject to tight budgets, including previously favored agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, which would see its spending essentially frozen at this year’s level.

Robert Eckel, president of the American Heart Association, said that it was a disappointment for the 71 million Americans who suffer from heart disease, stroke and other cardiovascular disease that Bush’s budget has placed funding for programs “that help prevent, treat and cure these diseases on the back burner of his domestic agenda.”

Medicare cuts controversial
Bush’s proposed Medicare reductions are expected to draw determined opposition in Congress, which just approved a package of $39 billion in cuts in benefit programs over five years, including $6.4 billion in reductions in the growth of Medicare and $4.7 billion in cuts in the growth of Medicaid, the joint state-federal program that provides health care to the poor.

The spending plan does contain some winners in the domestic arena.

Set for higher spending, as highlighted in Bush’s State of the Union address, are programs to address soaring energy costs through development of alternative fuels, rising medical bills through expanded health savings accounts and global competition through a new “American Competitiveness Initiative.”

That initiative would extend an expired business tax break for research and development, double the government’s commitment to basic scientific research and train thousands of new science and math teachers.

Instead of pushing last year’s Social Security overhaul proposal, the president is calling for creation of a bipartisan commission to study ways to deal with soaring spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. However, his budget does include a projection that creation of private investment accounts for younger workers, the heart of his plan, would cost $712 billion over the next decade.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11100952/
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Budget Woes

I would assert that His Excellency the Honourable George Bush, the President of the United States, should quite seriously reconsider some of these budgetary provisions; the deficit that this budget would force the United States to incur in one year would be more than twice the national revenue of Canada, to put this into perspective.

I would ask what our members from the United States think of this budget plan?
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
This isn't just a problem of George Bush, but rather
a problem that hits all American Presidents, past
and future.

One conceit here is that government leads with
a budget for the fad issue of the moment.

Another conceit is the issue of Christmas Tree Bills,
the "earmark", the unrelated pork barrel projects
to buy votes in members' consituencies.

This last conceit of this government and one that
plagues every democracy in the world, are these
Christmas Tree bills of unrelated add-ons, the product
of compromise and traded votes.

It muddies up the water of our leaders' voting
records. Often they must vote the baby out with
the bathwater and then see their opponents use
this untruthfully.

This is why the executive branch should have
LINE ITEM veto (like every Governor in every state has)
OR ---- have Congress outlaw the unrelated add-ons.

The last conceit here is what ideology the budget
should push.

On this too, there is much legitimate argument.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Budget Defeat

What would happen to the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Presidency were the budget to be rejected by the Houses? Is there any sort of dissolution or executive re-selection that must take place, as occurs in Canada?

Or would a new budget be introduced?

:!: On Another Note!

Yay! This marks my one thousandth post here at Canadian Content — and I hope to post thousands more! It has been, thus far, quite a privilege to have the opportunity to debate and discuss issues of such grave importance (and sometimes not so grave) with people of such stunning intellect and tolerance for respectful debate.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Just as an aside to the deficit figure.
Think of it as a percentage of GNP.
This is often excluded in any discussion.
I still think the deficit is awful, but it has no meaning
unless you think of it as a percentage of the total
economy.

And do you know what percentage the deficit is ?

And for FiveParadox, the answer is, that a new budget
is submitted and before it is, you got Congress passing
a series of stopgap interim budgets to keep the
bureaucracy running.

Our founding fathers did not believe in the idea
of dissolving government when the public loses confidence.

It smacked too much of mobocracy, tyranny of the
majority.

Although we have seen such a fear is not as bad
as they thought because parliamentiary system practices
that idea.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Interim Budgets

Would an interim budget in the United States be the same thing, in principle, as supplementary estimates passed in the House of Commons, or perhaps Special Warrants issued by a Governor General?
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: Budget Woes

FiveParadox said:
I would assert that His Excellency the Honourable George Bush, the President of the United States, should quite seriously reconsider some of these budgetary provisions; the deficit that this budget would force the United States to incur in one year would be more than twice the national revenue of Canada, to put this into perspective.

I would ask what our members from the United States think of this budget plan?

And I would assert GWB is an asshole. Any other questions?
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Understood. That should quite suffice, lol. ;)

Seriously though ... it sounds as if Mr. Bush honestly thinks that, what I would consider to be quite an irresponsible approach to a budget, is entirely justified; it sounds as though there is strong support in the White House for these measures.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Actually many of the medicare programs he's cutting is garbage anyway. I have a problem with his deficit though, even conservatives are angry about it. It only favors the Democrats anyway, they will most likely retake the US Senate this November.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Conservatives question the wasteful spending
of the Republicans. They are questioning the whole
idea of pork barrel. They are questioning the deficit.

And the weird thing is that the most well-known Republicans are the mavericks, like Arlen Specter,
finding it useful to have hearings on the policy of
domestic spying.


But the Democrats don't seem to offer anything better,
to us conservatives or to the independents or to the
people who vaguely follow politics but whose votes
are just as intelligent as ours, like an intuitive feel, like
a generalized understanding without the particulars,
that dominate the view of those who follow these
things pathetically closely.

And I highly doubt the Democrats will take over
either chamber, when you look at the dynamics of
each individual race.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Jimmy, if Bush has done anything positive, it is to make people understand that both radical left and right hurt the country. It's time for change. Centrists of the world unite already! :D
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Well you know I'm that centrist.

And I'd like to add a reponse to the imperious cartoony Rush Limbaugh's diatribe against moderates.

He often posits the question: Have you seen any
moderates or centrists gloried in history ? Have
You ever seen a moderate change history ?

My answer to his fallacious assumption that only
absolute leftists or absolute rightwingers moved the
world from slavery, or brought us civil rights is that
it took the moderates to stabilize the times.

It is the thinking moderates that often add the
critical mass to make any change happen and make
any change last, long after
the fanatical left or the fanatical right has strut itself
righteously on the stage.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
By the way Bush is already co-opted.
Oh you'll see the administration flex, but the reality
is deeper and stronger than any action of theirs.
I see the world and congress quite poised to continue
its challenge of him.

What I'm really interested in is if that Boehner guy
will get a law passed to stop earmarking, stop the christmas tree bill.

Bush Sr got Clinton the Line Item Veto until the Supreme Court struck it down.

Now with that avenue gone, we need Congress to
outlaw irrelevant earmarks, unrelated add-ons to any
bill.

This will have an adverse effect on lobbying.

It will have a positive effect on honesty.

It will show a truer picture of voting records in the Congress, because too many legislators have had
to vote for or against a bill that had too many
unrelated provisions.

How can you know the truth of what our legislators
thought?

Did they vote against that bill because of its
central premise or did they vote against that bill
because of an unrelated tagged on item ?
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Yep, that's why I asked, it will be interesting to see where it goes. So far Bush's domestic policy has sucked big time, he hasn't even gotten any "big issues" through. If he can get health care, energy bills and lobbyist reform, it will be great. The key would be lobbyist reform before touching anything else.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Forget about anything big from the Bush Administration.
They've shot their load in Iraq.

I differ with you on many aspects of the Bush administration, but what interests me is that
Christmas Tree bill reform.


And as far as Health Care, one of the best solutions
offered has been around a long time.

Make it mandatory like car insurance.

From that point we can get into the particulars,
but too much has gone on, and too much to get through
to have the critical mass to have focus on that issue
until another 2 or 3 years at minimum.

And by the way Christmas Tree reform, like TAX reform
is the best lobbyist reform you will ever see.

You take away the unrelated addons and you take
away the riddles in the tax code, and what do you got:
a lobbyist naked in the spotlight.