PDA

View Full Version : An unbiased article from AP on new budget


Bootlegged
02-07-2005, 04:19 PM
ROFL I can just see the steam pilfering out of his ears as he writes this....



Associated Press
Bush Proposes Steep Cuts in $2.57T Budget
Monday February 7, 5:02 pm ET
By Alan Fram, Associated Press Writer
President Bush Sends Congress $2.57T Spending Plan With Steep Cuts in Many Government Programs


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush proposed a $2.57 trillion budget Monday that erases scores of programs and slices Medicaid, disabled housing and many more but still worsens federal deficits by $42 billion over the next five years.
ADVERTISEMENT


In one of the most austere presidential budgets in years -- one that faces precarious prospects in Congress -- Bush would give nine of the 15 Cabinet-level departments less money in 2006 than they are getting this year. Overall, he would cut non-security domestic spending -- excluding automatically paid benefits like Medicare -- by nearly 1 percent next year. Bush said it was the first such reduction proposed by the White House since President Reagan's day.

Forty-eight education programs would be eliminated, including one for ridding drugs from schools. In all, more than 150 government-wide programs would be eliminated or slashed deeply, including Amtrak subsidies, oil and gas research, and grants to communities hiring police officers.

Bush would slow the growth of benefit programs by $137 billion over the next decade, nearly quadruple the savings he proposed a year ago with little success. Chief among the targets would be Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor and disabled, but farmers' payments, student loans and veterans medical services were also on the chopping block.

"It's a budget that focuses on results," Bush told reporters after meeting with his Cabinet. "The taxpayers of America don't want us spending our money into something that's not achieving results."

Yet largely because of Bush's plans for a defense buildup, this year's Iraq and Afghanistan war costs, and a handful of new tax cuts, the budget shows that deficits over the five years ending in 2010 would total nearly $1.4 trillion.

That is $42 billion worse than they would be if the government continued current spending levels and made no tax-law changes other than making permanent his already enacted tax cuts, his budget tables showed.

Bush's blueprint would leave next year's deficit at an estimated $390 billion -- and omit any new money next year for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That would be a reduction from last year's record $412 billion shortfall and would still leave Bush on his course to halve deficits by 2009, the White House said.

Even so, a $390 billion shortfall would be the third worst ever if his projection for $427 billion in red ink for this year comes true.

Without Bush's new tax and spending plans, the 2006 deficit would otherwise be $361 billion, the budget tables showed. The figures demonstrated how federal costs are soaring despite growing revenues the economy is pumping into the government.

Bush's package faced an uncertain fate in Congress, where conservatives seemed ready to demand deeper deficit reduction and Democrats -- and some Republicans -- were sure to resist its spending cuts.

Underscoring the jostling that lawmakers were preparing for, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., lauded the plan as "a blueprint to fund our nation's priorities" but called it "a good starting point for the Congress to begin its work."

Democrats chided the package for its proposed cuts and because they said it obscured more serious deficit problems ahead. They complained it excludes next year's war costs and the price tags of Bush's Social Security overhaul and of keeping the alternative minimum tax from affecting more middle-income families.

"Why is he playing this hide-and-seek game?" asked Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. "I believe it's because he really doesn't want people to know where he is headed."

Bush was expected to propose an $81 billion war package for the rest of 2005 in a few days. Congress has already approved $25 billion for the year.

Besides omitting the impact of revamping Social Security, Bush proposed no specific savings at all from Medicare, the health program for the elderly and disabled. The $340 billion-a-year program, though $200 billion smaller than Social Security, faces a long-term solvency problem whose solution is technically and politically more complicated because of the intricacies of health costs.

Bush was using some of his budget cuts to funnel billions to White House priorities.

Defense and domestic security would both see healthy growth, as would select education, public housing, space and other programs. He would also create tax breaks totaling $74 billion over the next decade to encourage low-income people to buy health insurance.

Even so, the budget provided ample evidence that deficits were limiting his agenda.

Bush's proposed 4.8 percent increase for the Pentagon would bring its budget next year to $419.3 billion, excluding Iraq war costs. Yet that was $3.4 billion less than he projected for 2006 just a year ago, with weapons procurement among the leading areas feeling the crunch.

He was seeking increases for perennial favorites like veterans health care, aid to low-income school districts, special education -- but all dramatically less than he proposed last year.

Even his tax-cutting agenda was under the gun and had little new. Of the $1.4 trillion in 10-year tax cuts, more than $1.1 trillion was his oft-repeated call to make his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent.

Donger
02-07-2005, 04:29 PM
ROFL I can just see the steam pilfering out of his ears as he writes this....



Associated Press
Bush Proposes Steep Cuts in $2.57T Budget
Monday February 7, 5:02 pm ET
By Alan Fram, Associated Press Writer
President Bush Sends Congress $2.57T Spending Plan With Steep Cuts in Many Government Programs


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush proposed a $2.57 trillion budget Monday that erases scores of programs and slices Medicaid, disabled housing and many more but still worsens federal deficits by $42 billion over the next five years.
ADVERTISEMENT


In one of the most austere presidential budgets in years -- one that faces precarious prospects in Congress -- Bush would give nine of the 15 Cabinet-level departments less money in 2006 than they are getting this year. Overall, he would cut non-security domestic spending -- excluding automatically paid benefits like Medicare -- by nearly 1 percent next year. Bush said it was the first such reduction proposed by the White House since President Reagan's day.

Forty-eight education programs would be eliminated, including one for ridding drugs from schools. In all, more than 150 government-wide programs would be eliminated or slashed deeply, including Amtrak subsidies, oil and gas research, and grants to communities hiring police officers.

Bush would slow the growth of benefit programs by $137 billion over the next decade, nearly quadruple the savings he proposed a year ago with little success. Chief among the targets would be Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for the poor and disabled, but farmers' payments, student loans and veterans medical services were also on the chopping block.

"It's a budget that focuses on results," Bush told reporters after meeting with his Cabinet. "The taxpayers of America don't want us spending our money into something that's not achieving results."

Yet largely because of Bush's plans for a defense buildup, this year's Iraq and Afghanistan war costs, and a handful of new tax cuts, the budget shows that deficits over the five years ending in 2010 would total nearly $1.4 trillion.

That is $42 billion worse than they would be if the government continued current spending levels and made no tax-law changes other than making permanent his already enacted tax cuts, his budget tables showed.

Bush's blueprint would leave next year's deficit at an estimated $390 billion -- and omit any new money next year for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That would be a reduction from last year's record $412 billion shortfall and would still leave Bush on his course to halve deficits by 2009, the White House said.

Even so, a $390 billion shortfall would be the third worst ever if his projection for $427 billion in red ink for this year comes true.

Without Bush's new tax and spending plans, the 2006 deficit would otherwise be $361 billion, the budget tables showed. The figures demonstrated how federal costs are soaring despite growing revenues the economy is pumping into the government.

Bush's package faced an uncertain fate in Congress, where conservatives seemed ready to demand deeper deficit reduction and Democrats -- and some Republicans -- were sure to resist its spending cuts.

Underscoring the jostling that lawmakers were preparing for, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., lauded the plan as "a blueprint to fund our nation's priorities" but called it "a good starting point for the Congress to begin its work."

Democrats chided the package for its proposed cuts and because they said it obscured more serious deficit problems ahead. They complained it excludes next year's war costs and the price tags of Bush's Social Security overhaul and of keeping the alternative minimum tax from affecting more middle-income families.

"Why is he playing this hide-and-seek game?" asked Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. "I believe it's because he really doesn't want people to know where he is headed."

Bush was expected to propose an $81 billion war package for the rest of 2005 in a few days. Congress has already approved $25 billion for the year.

Besides omitting the impact of revamping Social Security, Bush proposed no specific savings at all from Medicare, the health program for the elderly and disabled. The $340 billion-a-year program, though $200 billion smaller than Social Security, faces a long-term solvency problem whose solution is technically and politically more complicated because of the intricacies of health costs.

Bush was using some of his budget cuts to funnel billions to White House priorities.

Defense and domestic security would both see healthy growth, as would select education, public housing, space and other programs. He would also create tax breaks totaling $74 billion over the next decade to encourage low-income people to buy health insurance.

Even so, the budget provided ample evidence that deficits were limiting his agenda.

Bush's proposed 4.8 percent increase for the Pentagon would bring its budget next year to $419.3 billion, excluding Iraq war costs. Yet that was $3.4 billion less than he projected for 2006 just a year ago, with weapons procurement among the leading areas feeling the crunch.

He was seeking increases for perennial favorites like veterans health care, aid to low-income school districts, special education -- but all dramatically less than he proposed last year.

Even his tax-cutting agenda was under the gun and had little new. Of the $1.4 trillion in 10-year tax cuts, more than $1.1 trillion was his oft-repeated call to make his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent.

disabled housing
ridding drugs from schools
federal-state health insurance program for the poor and disabled,
the health program for the elderly and disabled

What about the puppies? DOESN'T BUSH CARE ABOUT THE PUPPIES!!

Taco John
02-07-2005, 11:59 PM
Bush isn't doing any favors for Republican congressmen for 2006 with a budget like this.

RINGLEADER
02-08-2005, 11:23 AM
Bush isn't doing any favors for Republican congressmen for 2006 with a budget like this.


I love the new Dem party line...

Amnorix
02-09-2005, 08:43 AM
Why are the budget needs of the military in Iraq and Afghanistan for the upcoming fiscal year not included at all?

I love it when they start playing accounting games.

Cochise
02-09-2005, 09:10 AM
Boy, that's one honest and fair piece of journalism :rolleyes:

KCTitus
02-09-2005, 09:25 AM
Bush Proposes Steep Cuts in $2.57T Budget

Someone help me out with the logic, how is it 'steep cuts' when the budget is the largest ever proposed?

If the budget total was actually 'less' than last years total, then you might have an argument, but this doesnt make any sense.

Cochise
02-09-2005, 09:28 AM
Someone help me out with the logic, how is it 'steep cuts' when the budget is the largest ever proposed?

If the budget total was actually 'less' than last years total, then you might have an argument, but this doesnt make any sense.

Liberal political lexicon:

Cut = failing to increase funding for a program by the same amount that you increased it the year before.

For example: if before last year the blind kids' budget was $10 and you increased it to $15, then this year you increased it to $18, then you "cut funding for blind kids".

bkkcoh
02-09-2005, 09:35 AM
Someone help me out with the logic, how is it 'steep cuts' when the budget is the largest ever proposed?

If the budget total was actually 'less' than last years total, then you might have an argument, but this doesnt make any sense.


Remember, in DC a cut is defined as a 5% increase instead of 7%!!!!

Amnorix
02-09-2005, 09:35 AM
Someone help me out with the logic, how is it 'steep cuts' when the budget is the largest ever proposed?

If the budget total was actually 'less' than last years total, then you might have an argument, but this doesnt make any sense.

Semantics. There are steep cuts within the overall budget. There are also significant increases in other areas that offset those cuts in terms of the total budget amount

Let me put it this way -- if tomorrow all programs except the military and Social Security were eliminated, but the overall budget amount remained the same, you're telling me there wouldn't be any cuts involved? :spock:

Amnorix
02-09-2005, 09:38 AM
Liberal political lexicon:

Cut = failing to increase funding for a program by the same amount that you increased it the year before.

For example: if before last year the blind kids' budget was $10 and you increased it to $15, then this year you increased it to $18, then you "cut funding for blind kids".

I feel for this yesterday and I'm NOT going to fall for it today. I'm NOT I tell you. I WON'T.

Baiting bastidge... :cuss::cuss::cuss:



:):p

KCTitus
02-09-2005, 09:44 AM
Semantics. There are steep cuts within the overall budget. There are also significant increases in other areas that offset those cuts in terms of the total budget amount

Let me put it this way -- if tomorrow all programs except the military and Social Security were eliminated, but the overall budget amount remained the same, you're telling me there wouldn't be any cuts involved? :spock:

Nope, I'd say we're spending too much, which is what I say today, which is what I said yesterday and the day before that and the day before that.

For almost the entire year of 2004, I read incessant complaints from newly minted deficit 'hawks' on the left about how Bush is spending too much. I agreed.

Obviously, it wasnt the spending of money that was the problem, rather, it was what he was spending it on. So the word 'steep' is a relative term that is used when the programs 'you' (generic you) like are being affected or eliminated. -- this was my point.

Frankly, I dont think he went far enough. Get the budge below 2T by next year, and then I'll be impressed.

KCTitus
02-09-2005, 09:46 AM
I feel for this yesterday and I'm NOT going to fall for it today. I'm NOT I tell you. I WON'T.

Baiting bastidge... :cuss::cuss::cuss:



:):p

So you're not going to extol the virtues of baseline budgeting? Did you know that all 'teat' programs are baselined but the ONLY thing that is actually tasked of the federal government, that being the military' has to be reauthorized every year?

Amnorix
02-09-2005, 09:48 AM
Nope, I'd say we're spending too much, which is what I say today, which is what I said yesterday and the day before that and the day before that.

For almost the entire year of 2004, I read incessant complaints from newly minted deficit 'hawks' on the left about how Bush is spending too much. I agreed.

Obviously, it wasnt the spending of money that was the problem, rather, it was what he was spending it on. So the word 'steep' is a relative term that is used when the programs 'you' (generic you) like are being affected or eliminated. -- this was my point.

Frankly, I dont think he went far enough. Get the budge below 2T by next year, and then I'll be impressed.

I don't have a problem with trying to do an objective (preferably bipartisan) analysis of where cuts in federal spending need to be made, and then making them. Unfortunately, these things become brutually difficult due to partisanship, Congressmen protecting their backyards, etc.

What I'd love to see is an independent commission (mostly of businesspeople rather than politicians) established to investigate / eliminate waste and mismanagement, and to provide recommendations with regard to programs that don't achieve their objectives efficiently (or at all). Of course, there's a better chance of pigs flying....

Amnorix
02-09-2005, 09:49 AM
So you're not going to extol the virtues of baseline budgeting? Did you know that all 'teat' programs are baselined but the ONLY thing that is actually tasked of the federal government, that being the military' has to be reauthorized every year?

The military hardly lacks for powerful proponents both in Congress and across the political spectrum. I can't say I'm too worried about the military getting screwed over in the budgeting process.

KCTitus
02-09-2005, 09:51 AM
I don't have a problem with trying to do an objective (preferably bipartisan) analysis of where cuts in federal spending need to be made, and then making them. Unfortunately, these things become brutually difficult due to partisanship, Congressmen protecting their backyards, etc.

What I'd love to see is an independent commission (mostly of businesspeople rather than politicians) established to investigate / eliminate waste and mismanagement, and to provide recommendations with regard to programs that don't achieve their objectives efficiently (or at all). Of course, there's a better chance of pigs flying....

From what Ive read, thus far, it appears the cuts affect both sides of the aisle.

Amnorix
02-09-2005, 09:53 AM
From what Ive read, thus far, it appears the cuts affect both sides of the aisle.

Don't know. Nor am I critical of these cuts. I haven't even reviewed them to know what they are.

What I am critical of is not including budgeting for Iraq/Afghanistan in the budget proposal.

KCTitus
02-09-2005, 09:58 AM
The military hardly lacks for powerful proponents both in Congress and across the political spectrum. I can't say I'm too worried about the military getting screwed over in the budgeting process.

'screwed' no, but it's the sole source of 'surpluses' and 'deficits' in years past since a new budget has to be drawn up each year. Actual cuts in military spending in the 90's gave Clinton his surpluses, rebuilding he military in the 80's gave Reagan his deficits.

KCTitus
02-09-2005, 09:59 AM
Don't know. Nor am I critical of these cuts. I haven't even reviewed them to know what they are.

What I am critical of is not including budgeting for Iraq/Afghanistan in the budget proposal.

Ok, then throw in SS onto the 'budget' as well...

Amnorix
02-09-2005, 10:02 AM
'screwed' no, but it's the sole source of 'surpluses' and 'deficits' in years past since a new budget has to be drawn up each year. Actual cuts in military spending in the 90's gave Clinton his surpluses, rebuilding he military in the 80's gave Reagan his deficits.

That's a joke of an oversimplification. Absolutely absurd.

Amnorix
02-09-2005, 10:04 AM
Ok, then throw in SS onto the 'budget' as well...

It already is. SS should not be, however. It's a separate, self-funding program. It should not be on the general budget, but was included because it creates a massive surplus and makes the overall deficit look significantly smaller.

If the full costs of our Afghanistan/Iraq military commitments aren't known, then take the lowest reasonable estimate and just use that figure. To completely exclude it and then rely on subsequent separate funding requests is just a game.

Donger
02-09-2005, 10:07 AM
It already is. SS should not be, however. It's a separate, self-funding program. It should not be on the general budget, but was included because it creates a massive surplus and makes the overall deficit look significantly smaller.

If the full costs of our Afghanistan/Iraq military commitments aren't known, then take the lowest reasonable estimate and just use that figure. To completely exclude it and then rely on subsequent separate funding requests is just a game.

I'm relatively sure that funding active "wars" have never been included in the budget. I'll have to look it up, but I think that WWII wasn't, either.

KCTitus
02-09-2005, 10:09 AM
That's a joke of an oversimplification. Absolutely absurd.

It's not, I encourage you to review the past budgets. I thought, like you, it was nonsense until I actually researched it.

KCTitus
02-09-2005, 10:10 AM
It already is. SS should not be, however. It's a separate, self-funding program. It should not be on the general budget, but was included because it creates a massive surplus and makes the overall deficit look significantly smaller.

Or maybe because all the 'extra' money this 'self funding' program takes in goes to the general fund anyway.

Amnorix
02-09-2005, 10:12 AM
I'm relatively sure that funding active "wars" have never been included in the budget. I'll have to look it up, but I think that WWII wasn't, either.

If it has a long historical precedent, then okay. But if it started with Vietnam or Gulf War I, then I'm not sure I'll be all that impressed.

patteeu
02-09-2005, 10:55 AM
For almost the entire year of 2004, I read incessant complaints from newly minted deficit 'hawks' on the left about how Bush is spending too much. I agreed.

Obviously, it wasnt the spending of money that was the problem, rather, it was what he was spending it on. So the word 'steep' is a relative term that is used when the programs 'you' (generic you) like are being affected or eliminated. -- this was my point.

I think you are being too kind. For a lot of the Bush critics I think the growing deficit was just a convenient avenue of attack rather than a heartfelt issue.

patteeu
02-09-2005, 10:58 AM
If it has a long historical precedent, then okay. But if it started with Vietnam or Gulf War I, then I'm not sure I'll be all that impressed.

I tend to agree with you on this one. If there is a longstanding tradition then it's marginally acceptable, but I'd still rather see honest accounting in the budget process.