Bush...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dgmodel, Jan 1, 2004.

  1. TGregg

    TGregg

    It's not that moderate, geez. :D
     
    #51     Jan 4, 2004
  2. January 4, 2004
    Bush's Budget for 2005 Seeks to Rein In Domestic Costs
    By ROBERT PEAR

    ASHINGTON, Jan. 3 — Facing a record budget deficit, Bush administration officials say they have drafted an election-year budget that will rein in the growth of domestic spending without alienating politically influential constituencies.

    They said the president's proposed budget for the 2005 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, would control the rising cost of housing vouchers for the poor, require some veterans to pay more for health care, slow the growth in spending on biomedical research and merge or eliminate some job training and employment programs. The moves are intended to trim the programs without damaging any essential services, the administration said.

    Even with the improving economic outlook, administration officials said, the federal budget deficit in the current fiscal year is likely to exceed last year's deficit of $374 billion, the largest on record.

    The Congressional Budget Office and the White House budget office have projected a deficit of more than $450 billion this year.

    But Joshua B. Bolten, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, has said the president's policies will cut the deficit in half within five years, through a combination of economic growth and fiscal restraint.

    Mr. Bush's budget request, to be sent to Congress by Feb. 2, includes several tax cut proposals, including new incentives for individual saving and tax credits to help uninsured people buy health insurance. The Democratic candidates for president have accused Mr. Bush of doing little to halt the recent rapid increase in the number of uninsured.

    Administration officials said the president's budget would call for an overall increase of about 3 percent in appropriations for so-called domestic discretionary spending, which excludes the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Department and insurance benefits like Medicare and Medicaid.

    As he completes work on his budget, Mr. Bush faces criticism from conservatives, who say he has presided over a big increase in federal spending, and liberals, who say his tax cuts have converted a large budget surplus to a deficit.

    Total federal revenues have declined for three consecutive years, apparently the first time that has happened since the early 1920's. But in those years, from 2000 to 2003, total federal spending has increased slightly more than 20 percent, to $2.16 trillion last year.

    Brian M. Riedl, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said: "President Bush is not focusing on his fiscal conservative base right now. He's trying to position himself in between conservatives in Congress and the Democratic Party. It may be good politics, but it's bad policy, a lost opportunity to get runaway government spending under control."

    White House officials deny that they have acquiesced in a domestic spending spree. They insist, as do some liberal advocacy groups, that appropriations for domestic programs are not exploding.

    Such spending, they say, will increase 3 percent in 2004, after increases of 5 percent in 2003, 6 percent in 2002 and 15 percent in 2001. Moreover, they say, increased corporate profits should lead to an increase in corporate tax payments, lifting revenues in the coming years.

    Richard Kogan, a budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning research and advocacy group, said the increase in military and domestic security spending in the last two years dwarfed the increase in domestic discretionary programs, which did not quite keep pace with inflation.

    "The increases for defense, international affairs and homeland security have been much greater — and thus have played a much larger role in the return to deficits — than the increases for domestic appropriations," Mr. Kogan said.

    Housing officials said the administration was alarmed at increases in the cost of vouchers, which provide rental assistance to low-income families, and would take steps to prevent local housing agencies from issuing more vouchers than Congress had authorized. Congress has tentatively decided to provide $14.2 billion for renewal of vouchers this year, an increase of about 15 percent.

    Federal officials said they would also require families seeking housing aid to help the government obtain more accurate information on their earnings. As a condition of receiving aid, families would have to consent to the disclosure of income data reported to a national directory of newly hired employees. The directory was created under a 1996 law to help enforce child-support obligations.

    Administration officials said the president's budget would also slow the growth of spending at the National Institutes of Health, which doubled in the last five years, reaching $27.1 billion in 2003. Congress has tentatively agreed to provide $28 billion this year, slightly more than Mr. Bush requested, and administration officials said they would seek an increase of 3 percent or less for 2005.

    Budget officials defended the proposal, saying they wanted to be sure the agency was properly managing a huge infusion of federal money.

    Mr. Bush proposed last year to double co-payments on prescription drugs for many veterans, primarily those with higher incomes and no service-connected disabilities. The White House reaffirmed its support for that proposal in November.

    In the last week, the Pentagon has been considering a new proposal to increase pharmacy co-payments for retirees with at least 20 years of military service. Under the proposal, the charge for a generic drug would rise to $10, from $3, while the charge for a brand-name medicine would rise to $20, from $9.

    The Military Officers Association of America criticized this as "a grossly insensitive and wrong-headed proposal." In e-mail messages to the White House, members of the association asked Mr. Bush, "Why do your budget officials persist in trying to cut military benefits?"

    Col. Steven P. Strobridge, director of government relations at the association, said he understood that the Pentagon was now inclined to study the issue for a year and renew the proposal, as part of a systematic effort to "reduce military health care costs."

    Administration officials said they expected Mr. Bush to seek increases of $1 billion, or 10 percent, for the education of children with disabilities and $1 billion, or 8 percent, in Title I grants for schools with high concentrations of students from low-income families.

    Budget officials said they were concerned that they did not have enough money for Pell grants to keep pace with a recent surge in low-income students seeking help with college costs. They said Mr. Bush would address that problem in some way, without seeking an increase in the maximum grant, now $4,050.

    The budget also seeks money to train more nurses, to encourage sexual abstinence among teenagers and to recruit "volunteers in homeland security," who can respond to emergencies, including terrorist attacks.
     
    #52     Jan 4, 2004
  3. Pabst

    Pabst

    Rogue. Thanks for the post. The failure of Congress in not allowing health premiums to be 100% deductible from income is a big gripe of mine. On one hand libs advocate socialized medicine on the other hand government penalizes those who try to do the right thing by contracting private insurance. What makes more sense: create a housing bubble by allowing mortgage deductibility or letting insurance have write off status. Flipped priorities. Americans had better get used to essentials like food, energy and insurance taking precedence over housing and automobile expenditures.
     
    #53     Jan 4, 2004
  4. Cutten

    Cutten

    Ok, who let the pinkos in? :D

    I have to agree with Gecko on this one. Greed is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Most of the improvements in living standards in advanced societies have come from innovations motivated by greed, and the pursuit of money and power. Economic growth makes people richer, happier, longer living, better educated, more civilised, less violent, freer, healthier, and more bangable. Trade between rich countries helps prevent wars and conflict - it's simply bad business. Poor countries generally don't sustain democracy or freedom - development of the latter factors are strongly correlated with national living standards.

    So it is clear to me that greed and the love of money are responsible for better quality of life for all. Greed has achieved more than any religion or do-gooder - more than Jesus, Ghandi, Mother Theresa and all the Popes combined - in terms of increasing human happiness and peace on earth. Next time you look around and think how lucky you are to live in a rich, prosperous, and fairly free society, stop for a moment and thank all those greedy money-grubbing heartless capitalist pigs who made it all possible.
     
    #54     Jan 4, 2004
  5. Pabst

    Pabst

    ROFL! Thank's my ally from the SE of England. That'll teach me to be a warm and fuzzy introspective capitalist!
     
    #55     Jan 4, 2004
  6. Jeffo

    Jeffo

    Whew. I was thinking I was the only conservative there for a few minutes.

    It's amazing how everybody is with Bush right after 9/11 then half the people do an about face and want things to stay the way they were.
     
    #56     Jan 4, 2004
  7. #57     Jan 4, 2004
  8. cdbern

    cdbern

    Folks on the left paint Bush as being stupid and dim whitted when in reality they are so
    peeved they’re foaming at the mouth. In the last campaign Bush did the unthinkable. He
    took a time honored tradition and turned it upside down and inside out.

    Never before has a candidate from one party actually embraced the ideals of the other.
    When Bush started embracing ideals fostered by the left (if only moderately), not only did
    he steal their thunder, but moderates warmed up to him. They could more easily handle
    the right agenda. Conservatives, while not wholly liking Bush’s moderate stance, didn’t
    find it so hard to swallow because he did after all also embrace their more conservative
    views.

    In effect he won two camps instead of one. What a stroke of genius. Now that is thinking
    outside the box. I laughed. Its a tactic campaign managers have never had the nerve to
    do. And because it violated a time honored tradition, it caught Gore’s camp completely
    unprepared.

    Some might wonder why Bush didn’t win with a larger margin. Because Gore’s camp
    only had one thing left they could do, instill fear and confusion. That is something the left
    has mastered. The major cities where Gore garnered the greatest number of votes is
    comprised of those wanting entitlements. Democrats know their strength lies here.
    Entitlement is the agenda and inner city voters are the recipients.

    Truth has never been particularly high on their agenda. Dealing with a liberal is like
    dealing with a woman suffering from PMS. They’re incapable of rational thought and
    conversation. Ever wonder why liberals resort to name calling? Its a manifestation of
    their frustration. Democrats can’t verbalize the ‘whys’ of their agenda without first
    admitting the ineptness of their voter base and without disclosing an agenda most find
    unacceptable. Charity in and of itself is a good thing, however supporting the lazy bum
    sitting on the couch all day watch TV is a hard pill for working Americans to swallow.

    As an old campaign manager and political consultant (for the democrats I might add), I’ll
    be watching this Presidential campaign unfold. Bush doesn’t need a terrorist attack to
    win. All he has to do is continue embracing both moderate and conservative ideals,
    thereby pushing the Democratic nominee (probably Dean) further to the left.

    Without that tactic on the part of Bush, Dean would still be a hard sell. While he has the
    looks, leadership strength isn’t there. His persona doesn’t say “I have what it takes to do
    the job”.
     
    #58     Jan 4, 2004
  9. Never had one party embraced the ideals of another party?

    Oh, you mean the balanced budged of the Clinton era was a republican ideal?

    How odd that the republicans never seem to live up to some of their ideals.

    As far as instilling fear and confusion, take a look at our homeland "security."

    The Bush administration has made their bones by instilling fear and confusion.

     
    #59     Jan 4, 2004
  10. cdbern

    cdbern

    The balanced came at what point in Clintons Presidency?? Think about it now. I'll give you a hint, it wasn't until after what happened????
     
    #60     Jan 4, 2004