0
   

Bush's -lean- $2.57 trillion budget....

 
 
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 11:57 am
Quote:
Bush Budget Kicks Off Debate in Congress
February 08, 2005 10:41 AM EST

WASHINGTON - President Bush says he has produced a "lean" $2.57 trillion spending plan that would promote his key goals of fighting terrorism and protecting the homeland while seeking to weed out ineffective government programs. But critics are complaining about the president's priorities and charging that the budget is more notable for what has been left out.

Setting the stage for months of partisan squabbles in Congress, Republican lawmakers generally praised Bush's budget for 2006 while Democrats heaped scorn on the proposal.

Sen. John Kerry, Bush's defeated Democratic presidential opponent, said Bush had reached "new lows of fiscal irresponsibility" by proposing a spending plan that "takes cops off the street, hurts veterans and punishes school children while saddling future generations with record budget deficits and mountains of debt."

Bush defended the spending blueprint, saying, "It's a budget that focuses on results."

He told reporters that "the taxpayers of America don't want us spending our money into something that's not achieving results."

The president was traveling to Detroit on Tuesday to promote his agenda for economic prosperity, which includes budgetary restraint, tax cuts, deregulation and free trade.

On Capitol Hill, Treasury Secretary John Snow and Joshua Bolten, Bush's budget director, were testifying Tuesday at separate congressional hearings that begin a long legislative process that will stretch into the fall as Congress crafts its own budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

Bush sent his massive multivolume set of spending documents, trimmed in bright blue, to Congress on Monday, saying the new budget focused on his priorities while targeting 150 government programs for either outright elimination or drastic reductions, including Amtrak passenger train subsidies and grants to communities for hiring police officers.

In the most tightfisted budget of his presidency, Bush proposed giving nine of 15 Cabinet-level agencies less money in 2006 than they are getting this year. And overall non-security domestic spending - excluding such automatic benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare - would be reduced by 0.7 percent next year.

Bush said this was the first outright cut in this wide swath of government programs proposed by any president since Ronald Reagan.

"I understand that sometimes it's hard to eliminate a program that sounds good," Bush said Monday at the White House. "I'm saying to members of Congress, show us the results as to whether or not this program is working."

Republicans, while generally endorsing Bush's approach, noted that Congress will have its own opinions about what spending priorities to set. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., called the administration's plan "a good starting point for the Congress to begin its work."

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., conceded that "obviously this is a budget that is going to create some significant angst among my colleagues." But he praised the administration for producing a budget of "fiscal responsibility" that would call Republicans "back to our roots."

Democrats, however, were less kind, accusing Bush of budgetary sleight of hand to keep some huge costs out of the budget.

While the administration has said that it will request $81 billion in new spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan within a few days and will have to come back to Congress for more money in 2006, new money for the two military operations in the two countries was omitted for 2006 and beyond.

Likewise, the administration's top domestic priority, overhauling Social Security by creating private investment accounts, was kept out of the budget even though the administration has already estimated that transition costs for the first decade will total $754 billion.

In both cases, the administration said not enough was known about future needs in Iraq or the ultimate shape of Bush's Social Security proposal to come up with realistic budget estimates.

Bush's proposed 4.8 percent increase for the Pentagon would bring its budget next year to $419.3 billion, excluding Iraq war costs. 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.

Bush wants to make his first term tax cuts permanent at a 10-year cost of $1.1 trillion. However, most of that expense will not show up until after 2010, when the bulk of tax cuts are set to expire, and the Bush budget did not provide any deficit estimates past 2010.

Bush's spending plan showed deficits totaling $1.8 trillion from the current year through 2010, including a record $427 billion imbalance this year. After this year, Bush's budget projects that the deficits will decline to $233 billion in 2009, the year the president pledged during the campaign to cut the deficit in half, a goal he would achieve at that level in terms of the deficit's share of the total economy.

Democrats said if Bush had shown the real costs of the Iraq operation in future years, the transition costs for Social Security and the price of making his tax cuts permanent then deficits over the next decade would total more than $4 trillion.


his ineffective government programs have included Social security disability and Social services.... ineffective indeed. Rolling Eyes
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,572 • Replies: 23
No top replies

 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 11:58 am
BiPolarWolf is in the house!
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 12:00 pm
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 12:02 pm
Today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer refers to it, in an editorial, as a "DOA budget." We can only hope so...
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 12:05 pm
A lot of jobs will be lost in my area if it goes through as is. My congressman has made a lifetime career out of getting pork for us, I don't expect him to lay down for these cuts. It's going to be interesting.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 12:09 pm
From www.dailykos.com :

Quote:
Abstinence-only sex education programs have had "little impact" on Texas teenagers' behavior, according to an ongoing study funded by the Texas Department of Health and presented to state officials last week, the Dallas Morning News reports. Buzz Pruitt, professor of health and kinesiology at Texas A&M University, and colleagues examined five abstinence-only sex education programs at more than 24 schools across Texas. For the study, junior high and high school students filled out an anonymous 10-page questionnaire on their sexual behavior. The study found that 23% of ninth-grade girls reported having had sexual intercourse before they received abstinence education, a percentage below the national average. However, the study found that 28% of the same girls reported having had sexual intercourse after receiving abstinence education, a percentage that is "closer to that of their peers across the state," according to the Morning News. In addition, the study found that the percentage of ninth-grade boys reporting having had sexual intercourse remained unchanged before and after abstinence education; however, the percentage of 10th grade boys reporting sexual activity "jumped" from 24% to 39% after participating in abstinence education, according to the Morning News. "We didn't find strong evidence of program effect," Pruitt said, adding, "We didn't find what many would like for us to find."


The punchline?

Quote:
If the budget is approved, abstinence education would get $206 million, an increase of $39 million.


Nice lean budget there. Did you know that we only offer AIDS assistance to countries that teach abstinance-only sexual education? It's truly heartwarming.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 12:11 pm
Well, they are probably the ones who need it the most.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 12:13 pm
We've spent about 1 billion of the promised 15 billion on it. Truly sad.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Feb, 2005 04:01 pm
Oh my god.................
This CANT be true?
abstinance-only education gets more then local law enforcement?

Holy sh*t...

I cant think of anything else to say other then holy sh*t
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 10:41 am
Sex is inherently more evil than crime....
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 10:50 am
Bingo.


AND.. teaching NO SEX is more effective then having the ability/manpower to arrest criminals.

amazing president we have...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 10:57 am
Federal budget does not pay for policemen.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 01:19 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Federal budget does not pay for policemen.


I guess it is even worse than she thought. How horrid!!!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 01:31 pm
Federal budget does, in fact, pay for policemen.

How? Two areas: #1, emergency training for Homeland security, and much more importantly, #2, funding from the ATF for anti-drug initiatives.

Many police departments depend on the ATF money for survival; they've been using it for so long now that it's become a crutch.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 01:34 pm
Her statement was that "local law enforcement" was getting less. Since that is what McG was replying to (although he could have been a bit more specific) then he is correct in his statement.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 01:47 pm
Local law enforcement IS recieving less.

The budget shortfalls we have been experiencing over the last four years have, in many cases, been passed along to the states. You don't hear much talk about it; we speak as if deficits are not real-world problems, but they are.

For example, Texas alone recieved several billions less over the last four years than usual in Federal funding. The money for some of the programs which were no longer being funded had to come from somewhere, and in many cases, it's reduced budgets for police, fire, and emergency response crews. Repeat this across all 50 states.

It's trickle-down economics in action.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 01:50 pm
I just want to make sure I understand you here Cy. You are stating that LOCAL law enforcement agencies receive money directly from the federal government. If that is what you are saying and that is the case, then I would have to say that McG's statement is wrong. But this would also be news to me (though I do not claim to track all the minute details of our vast, bloated federal budget).
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 01:58 pm
the government DOES fund local and state law enforcement.
Here is an excerpt from an article I was reading about G-W-B's budget cut....

-------------------------------

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION BUGET PROPOSAL
For fiscal year 2003-2004, the Bush Administration has proposed three major changes to the federal governments funding for state and local law enforcement. First, the Administration plans to eliminate Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants for the hiring of additional police officers. This proposal is a good idea. Even with the best of intentions, COPS has not been a successful program when its performance has been measured by rigorous standards of social science research. COPS was intended to reduce crime by putting 100,000 additional officers on America's streets. Research by The Heritage Foundation, U.S. Department of Justice, and the General Accounting Office have all found that COPS failed to come close the 100,000 additional officer goal. Despite funding of $8 billion between fiscal years 1994 to 2000, a 2000 report titled National Evaluation of the COPS Program, by the DOJ, estimates that the number of officers that COPS placed on the streets would, at most, peak at around 57,000 by 2001.

------------------------------------------------------


Though CY explained things better then I did, this piece of article backs up my ((((( AND.. teaching NO SEX is more effective then having the ability/manpower to arrest criminals. ))))) statement.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 02:00 pm
I tend to turn a blind eye to it also costalrat.
it is frustrating to say the least!!!!!
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2005 02:02 pm
Thanks for setting me straight shewolfnm. See, even a conservative can learn something. Just goes to show you how having an open mind is a good thing. I think. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush's -lean- $2.57 trillion budget....
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 08:46:46