|
Bush's Budget Proposal
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
It's been touched upon here and there by me and a couple of others. I thought it appropriate to have a thread of its own for discussion. In case you've missed it, Bush is taking an ax to 150 programs and making cuts all around. But what's conspicuously missing from his budget, oh so strangely, is the following 4 big items:
1. Bush's war cost in Iraq and Afghanistan
2. Bush's trillion dollar Social Security privatization scheme
3. The cost of lost revenue from Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts
4. Bush's proposal to curb the minimum tax ($44 billion)
Boy, strange that. Some other fun things to note about his nifty budget plan:
| quote: | It is the 2004 deficit that Bush is promising to cut in half, but he's not starting with the actual 2004 deficit of $412 billion.
Instead, his benchmark is the projected $521-billion deficit that his Office of Management and Budget estimated a year ago, when the fiscal year was four months old. Using half of that figure, Bush's goal is to reach a deficit of $260.5 billion.
If Bush were to start with the actual 2004 figure, his goal would be a deficit of $206 billion — $54.5 billion more.
There are more twists. Bush proposes to cut the deficit in half not in dollars but as a share of the economy. If the economy grows, as is projected, then the deficit will decline as a share of the economy even if it does not shrink by a single dollar.
The 2004 deficit was 4.5% of the economy. So in fiscal 2009 it must be 2.2% or less. That is exactly the average share of the last 43 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...eadlines-nation |
So what are some of these lovely items that Bush proposes to slice all in the name of curbing the deficit (besides his ridiculous tax cuts and both wars)? Why, just a few items here and there. And let's keep in mind that 1 out of every 3 programs involve Education!:
Job Training slashed by $500 million
-just in time, thank God! I mean, with all our jobs going overseas, why train anyone here? What a waste!
Firefighters slashed by $215 million
-who needs 'em, right? Bleh, good riddance!
Police federal grants reduced 90% from $600 million to $60 million
-Ah 'em! Let the states pay for their crime fighters! Whadaya mean your local taxes will be raised to pay for it? Who cares, man! Federal deficit trimmin' time! You can't pay for it on the local level - hire some vigilantes or somethin'! That's your business!
Veterans co-payments DOUBLED, some would be required to pay a new annual fee of $250 for using gov't healthcare
-Nothing like showin' a little love for our veterans fighting to stave off those darn insurgents in Iraq before they come here, right?
Bioterrorism Protection Funding cut - the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would be reduced by 9 percent under Bush's plan. Specifically, "the public health emergency fund of the (CDC), which helps state and local agencies prepare for bioterror attacks, would be cut 12.6 percent."
-Bleh, you see one virus, you've seen 'em all. Who cares?
(Bush on 6/2/02 - "bioterrorism is a real threat to our country...It's important that we confront these real threats to our country and prepare for future emergencies. Protecting our citizens against bioterrorism is an urgent duty of...American governments.")
The Poor -
-This is my favorite! Nevermind the fact that home heating oil has skyrocketed. Cutting the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), which helps people pay their heating bills, by 8.4%! Woohoo! At last year's funding levels, only 1/6 of low-income families who qualified for the program were able to receive assistance. Last year's funding for LIHEAP was 23% lower than in 2001.
Education specifically-
-$440 million in Safe and Drug-Free School grants, $500 million in education technology state grants, $225 million for the Even Start literacy program, $280 million for Upward Bound programs for inner-city youths, $150 million talent research programs, and $1.1 billion in state vocational education grants.
-I like my voters dumb as rocks. Thank God Bush and I are on the same page!
-Pell Grants - Bush lives up to his promise by increasing the Pell Grant Scholarship by a whopping $100/scholarship! Woohoo.
Meanwhile, he decides to eliminate the Perkins loan program, a program that helped 673,000 low and middle income families afford a college education last year!(http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...-college05.html)
Airlines-
-Just a small hike in ticket fees. Just don't call it a tax, because it ain't one, right? Guys? Hello?
And while we're at it, let's talk about the rest of those darn regressive taxes Bush is proposing - about $5.3 billion worth:
http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/...06/pdf/spec.pdf (p. 305).
And thank goodness that $1.4 TRILLION in tax cuts for the wealthy is off the table! We gotta keep protecting the affluent, right boys?:
http://www.cbpp.org/2-7-05bud3.htm
Amtrak-
No money for you! Sorry, please move on!
Environment-
$100 million in grants for land and water conservation. Ahh 'em, the rapture's comin' soon anyway. Who cares what we do to God's creation?
Health-
$94 million in Healthy Communities Access Program, and phase out rural health grants
So what do we have to show from all these cuts? Well the total amount these cuts come to in our budget spending - 1%.
The total amount of how much they'll trim down the deficit? - 6%.
Compare that to the % of Bush's tax cuts on the deficit - 48%:
http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud.htm
Here's the main articles on the whole plan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...2_budget07.html
Welcome to Bush's world. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| look for him to start using his veto power. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
look for him to start using his veto power. |
You bring up an interesting point, but I don't know if he'll veto much of anything. It's likely that a fight between him and the spend-thrift GOP Congressmen will ensue, but I really don't see him doing much to curb them off in the end. They have their districts to please, and the pork will continue to flow while the proposed cuts will likely be turned away, at least the bulk of them. And Bush has to have his GOP support, plus he hasn't been very good at vetoing any spending bill in the past (none, right?).
I dunno. Bush does finally seem to realize that the Budget will likely be on the forefront of pretty much every policy decision he makes in this 2nd term, but I just wonder if he really gets it. He won't touch his tax cuts, despite how much they could add revenue to the government, even just cutting the top 1-10% or so. His proposed budget is still 1/3 more than his budget in 2001 (or something like that). As a share of GDP, it's still not that bad and is actually lower than the 20 yr. average. The federal revenue as a share of the GDP, however, is the lowest it's been since something like 1959. Given our current cost of government programs now in comparison to then (many didn't even exist then), this is seriously problematic.
The most obvious and logical thing to do is to roll back part of his tax cuts. Christ, Reagan realized this once Bob Dole told him to do so. Bush Sr. and Clinton realized this. These tax cuts are not sustainable, and this "starving the beast" tactic is going to run very much against not just the Dems., but the Republicans trying to please their districts as well. I don't know who will cave in, but one way or another things have to change ASAP. |
|
|
| TheVrk |
CLASSIC Republican mentality:
1. public programs
2. HELP the rich (who need it least) and
3. WAR!WAR!WAR! More $$$$ for WAR!!!!:rolleyes:
:whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheVrk
CLASSIC Republican mentality:
1. public programs
2. HELP the rich (who need it least) and
3. WAR!WAR!WAR! More $$$$ for WAR!!!!:rolleyes:
:whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: :whip: |
I think you summed it up rather nicely. I have to remember to take a dump on the homeless on my way home, give $100 to the guy that lives in the mansion at the top of my street, and then go play some GTA. But most importantly, I look forward to savoring that 5:00 . |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I think you summed it up rather nicely. I have to remember to take a dump on the homeless on my way home, give $100 to the guy that lives in the mansion at the top of my street, and then go play some GTA. But most importantly, I look forward to savoring that 5:00 . |
:stongue:
And with that, I'm ready for my beer! |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
:stongue:
And with that, I'm ready for my beer! |
I'm taking it light today. A Mandarin Orange flavored Green-Tea is calling my name right now. :tongue2
As far as the budget, I'm interested to see what the man of enumerable failed oil ventures will accomplish - other than making our country's wanton indebtedness the subjest of further derision. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Job Training slashed by $500 million
-just in time, thank God! I mean, with all our jobs going overseas, why train anyone here? What a waste!
Firefighters slashed by $215 million
-who needs 'em, right? Bleh, good riddance!
Police federal grants reduced 90% from $600 million to $60 million
-Ah 'em! Let the states pay for their crime fighters! Whadaya mean your local taxes will be raised to pay for it? Who cares, man! Federal deficit trimmin' time! You can't pay for it on the local level - hire some vigilantes or somethin'! That's your business!
Veterans co-payments DOUBLED, some would be required to pay a new annual fee of $250 for using gov't healthcare
-Nothing like showin' a little love for our veterans fighting to stave off those darn insurgents in Iraq before they come here, right?
Bioterrorism Protection Funding cut - the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would be reduced by 9 percent under Bush's plan. Specifically, "the public health emergency fund of the (CDC), which helps state and local agencies prepare for bioterror attacks, would be cut 12.6 percent."
-Bleh, you see one virus, you've seen 'em all. Who cares?
(Bush on 6/2/02 - "bioterrorism is a real threat to our country...It's important that we confront these real threats to our country and prepare for future emergencies. Protecting our citizens against bioterrorism is an urgent duty of...American governments.")
The Poor -
-This is my favorite! Nevermind the fact that home heating oil has skyrocketed. Cutting the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), which helps people pay their heating bills, by 8.4%! Woohoo! At last year's funding levels, only 1/6 of low-income families who qualified for the program were able to receive assistance. Last year's funding for LIHEAP was 23% lower than in 2001.
Education specifically-
-$440 million in Safe and Drug-Free School grants, $500 million in education technology state grants, $225 million for the Even Start literacy program, $280 million for Upward Bound programs for inner-city youths, $150 million talent research programs, and $1.1 billion in state vocational education grants.
-I like my voters dumb as rocks. Thank God Bush and I are on the same page!
-Pell Grants - Bush lives up to his promise by increasing the Pell Grant Scholarship by a whopping $100/scholarship! Woohoo.
Meanwhile, he decides to eliminate the Perkins loan program, a program that helped 673,000 low and middle income families afford a college education last year!(http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...-college05.html)
Airlines-
-Just a small hike in ticket fees. Just don't call it a tax, because it ain't one, right? Guys? Hello?
And while we're at it, let's talk about the rest of those darn regressive taxes Bush is proposing - about $5.3 billion worth:
http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/...06/pdf/spec.pdf (p. 305).
And thank goodness that $1.4 TRILLION in tax cuts for the wealthy is off the table! We gotta keep protecting the affluent, right boys?:
http://www.cbpp.org/2-7-05bud3.htm
Amtrak-
No money for you! Sorry, please move on!
Environment-
$100 million in grants for land and water conservation. Ahh 'em, the rapture's comin' soon anyway. Who cares what we do to God's creation?
Health-
$94 million in Healthy Communities Access Program, and phase out rural health grants
So what do we have to show from all these cuts? Well the total amount these cuts come to in our budget spending - 1%.
The total amount of how much they'll trim down the deficit? - 6%.
Compare that to the % of Bush's tax cuts on the deficit - 48%:
http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud.htm
Here's the main articles on the whole plan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...2_budget07.html
|
But who needs any of those things when you have guns & butter?
/dripping sarcasm |
|
|
| TheVrk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I think you summed it up rather nicely. I have to remember to take a dump on the homeless on my way home, give $100 to the guy that lives in the mansion at the top of my street, and then go play some GTA. But most importantly, I look forward to savoring that 5:00 . |
U got it there - HOW COULD I FORGET?!?!?!:conf: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
I'll probably get some for publishing Krugman's latest column, but he has some damn good points so I just can't help myself (sorry):
| quote: | February 11, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Bush's Class-War Budget
By PAUL KRUGMAN
It may sound shrill to describe President Bush as someone who takes food from the mouths of babes and gives the proceeds to his millionaire friends. Yet his latest budget proposal is top-down class warfare in action. And it offers the Democrats an opportunity, if they're willing to take it.
First, the facts: the budget proposal really does take food from the mouths of babes. One of the proposed spending cuts would make it harder for working families with children to receive food stamps, terminating aid for about 300,000 people. Another would deny child care assistance to about 300,000 children, again in low-income working families.
And the budget really does shower largesse on millionaires even as it punishes the needy. For example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities informs us that even as the administration demands spending cuts, it will proceed with the phaseout of two little-known tax provisions - originally put in place under the first President George Bush - that limit deductions and exemptions for high-income households.
More than half of the benefits from this backdoor tax cut would go to people with incomes of more than a million dollars; 97 percent would go to people with incomes exceeding $200,000.
It so happens that the number of taxpayers with more than $1 million in annual income is about the same as the number of people who would have their food stamps cut off under the Bush proposal. But it costs a lot more to give a millionaire a break than to put food on a low-income family's table: eliminating limits on deductions and exemptions would give taxpayers with incomes over $1 million an average tax cut of more than $19,000.
It's like that all the way through. On one side, the budget calls for program cuts that are small change compared with the budget deficit, yet will harm hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable Americans. On the other side, it calls for making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, and for new tax breaks for the affluent in the form of tax-sheltered accounts and more liberal rules for deductions.
The question is whether the relentless mean-spiritedness of this budget finally awakens the public to the true cost of Mr. Bush's tax policy.
Until now, the administration has been able to get away with the pretense that it can offset the revenue loss from tax cuts with benign spending restraint. That's because until now, "restraint" was an abstract concept, not tied to specific actions, making it seem as if spending cuts would hurt only a few special interest groups.
But here we are with the first demonstration of restraint in action, and look what's on the chopping block, selected for big cuts: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, health insurance for children and aid to law enforcement. (Yes, Mr. Bush proposes to cut farm subsidies, which are truly wasteful. Let's see how much political capital he spends on that proposal.)
Until now, the administration has also been able to pretend that the budget deficit isn't an important issue so the role of tax cuts in causing that deficit can be ignored. But Mr. Bush has at last conceded that the deficit is indeed a major problem.
Why shouldn't the affluent, who have done so well from Mr. Bush's policies, pay part of the price of dealing with that problem?
Here's a comparison: the Bush budget proposal would cut domestic discretionary spending, adjusted for inflation, by 16 percent over the next five years. That would mean savage cuts in education, health care, veterans' benefits and environmental protection. Yet these cuts would save only about $66 billion per year, about one-sixth of the budget deficit.
On the other side, a rollback of Mr. Bush's cuts in tax rates for high-income brackets, on capital gains and on dividend income would yield more than $120 billion per year in extra revenue - eliminating almost a third of the budget deficit - yet have hardly any effect on middle-income families. (Estimates from the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution show that such a rollback would cost families with incomes between $25,000 and $80,000 an average of $156.)
Why, then, shouldn't a rollback of high-end tax cuts be on the table?
Democrats have surprised the Bush administration, and themselves, by effectively pushing back against Mr. Bush's attempt to dismantle Social Security. It's time for them to broaden their opposition, and push back against Mr. Bush's tax policy.
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/o...fPaul%20Krugman |
The CBPP.org article he's referring to can be seen here:
http://www.cbpp.org/2-7-05bud3.htm
I'm sorry but these budget cuts really do shine a great big light on the mentality of Bush and his Administration. I won't go any further than that with labeling, because there's a good healthy portion of Republicans who disagree with many of these cuts as well. But for him to have the bulk of these cuts affect the poor, the elderly, education, firefighters and policemen, while at the same time essentially boosting a regressive tax increase AND giving this trillion dollar tax break to the top 1%, and then to top it off STILL have a budget that will increase the deficit and do so very little to cut overall spending....
I just don't have any words. It's just ing unconscionable.
Along with this whole Gannon affair and the present success of pushing back on Bush's ridiculous Social Security reform, this is another gaping whole for the Democrats to exploit. Let's see if they do just that. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
It's simply unbelievable that he continues to spend more than he has while at the same time cutting many of these programs that actually help people. What happened to all the things he said in the debates about offering more education programs as a means of helping workers affected by globalization or denying he'd cut police & fire services? Didn't anyone else find it odd that Kerry was constantly questioned and criticized for how he was going to pay for all his programs through the tax cut reduction, yet Bush gave no details as to how he'd pay for his plans and cut the deficit in half and no one seemed to ask for specifics?
The details offered about social security are highly questionable as well and it's nice the Dems are finally starting to act like the opposition party they're supposed to be. The sales pitch doesn't mention anything about the lost benefits and if you think about it, Bush's plan really does hardly anything to make the system any more solvent than it currently is and he gives no details about where the transition money would come from. Not to mention if he did provide money that made it solvent for transition costs, social security as it is would be fixed and there'd be no need for the restof his proposals, so long as the trust fund stops getting raided. I'm starting to comearound to the theory I once thought was ridiculous, that Republicans intentionally spend lots of money and go into deficit spending so that they can cut out social programs based on the argument we can't afford them. |
|
|
|
|
