Discussion: Bush's budget

[oboe]

Excerpts from the AP Wire story:

...One of the most politically sensitive targets on Bush's hit list is the government support program for farmers, which he wants to trim by $5.7 billion over the next decade, which would represent cuts to farmers growing a wide range of cuts from cotton and rice to corn, soybeans and wheat.

Overall, the administration projected saving $8.2 billion in agriculture programs over the next decade including trimming food stamp payments to the poor by $1.1 billion.

...About one-third of the programs being targeted for elimination are in the Education Department, including federal grant programs for local schools in such areas as vocational education, anti-drug efforts and Even Start, a $225 million literacy program.

In all, the president proposed savings of $137 billion over 10 years in mandatory programs with much of that occurring in reductions in Medicaid, the big federal-state program that provides health care for the poor, and in payments the Veterans Administration makes for health care....

I'm thinking that the Red state farmers aren't going to appreciate the $5.7 billion cut in government farm support programs.

Basically though, I think this is a beautiful budget, in that it sums up alot of what Bush is about.   Cuts in food and healthcare to the poor, education, cuts against farmers, cuts in veterans' health benefits.   All to finance continued tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.    This is one thing I don't understand about the Red state support for Bush.   I mean, those poor people are getting whacked in the economic face with a 2x4.  Why would all those common, decent folk in the Red states favor tax cuts for the wealthy over help to the needy, for education, for veterans?

Just my opinion, though.  I'm sure there are some cuts in programs in there that deserve to be cut.   Still I can't help but wonder how much progress in deficit reduction could be made if the cuts were combined with a rollback of the "temporary" tax cuts for the wealthy.  

Coupla other points, apparently alot of these "cuts" are cost shifts, and "explode" in 5 years, after Bush is out of the White House.   And apparently the recently requested additional $80 billion for Iraq is not in the budget.  Why not?

[Nash]

Originally posted by oboe
This is one thing I don't understand about the Red state support for Bush.   I mean, those poor people are getting whacked in the economic face with a 2x4.  Why would all those common, decent folk in the Red states favor tax cuts for the wealthy over help to the needy, for education, for veterans?

It's a bit of a trade off. Yes, the red states might be getting screwed. And yes, it may seem a bit strange in the face of their overwhelming support for Bush. But you have to keep in mind that Bush has the resolve to protect the red states from terrorist attacks on their farms. I think that trumps any amount of economic hardship.

[Mighty1]

As someone who works at a school I can see why he plans to cut some programs.

Just because the money goes to a school doesn't mean it's being used correctly.

I see so much wasted money on Inclusion and Fine Arts.... etc etc. (And no I don't mean get rid of all of them but trim the waste.)

[oboe]

I volunteer in my son's school and I agree about the waste.   They have row after row of brand new I-macs, but have 30+ kids per teacher.   I think I'd be tempted to dump all the computers and rely on cast-offs and donated machines from local businesses, while using the extra money to hire another teacher to reduce class sizes.

The incompetence of school boards made an impression even on Mark Twain, who remarked: "First, God created idiots. That was just for practice. Then He created school boards."

My own school district is now closing two elementary schools due to a forecasted reduction in student enrollment.    Which would be fine but the paint isn't even dry on one of the schools after the remodelling effort may possible when the most recent referendum passed.    No wonder voters are starting to reject school district levies.   Too bad-- its the kids that lose when poor management like this is punished.

So yeah, targeted education cuts may be well deserved.  But cuts to veterans health benefits (in a time of war no less), so that the wealthiest Americans can sustain a tax break?

[rpm]

Yeah, Bush is going to cut Federal funding to schools to trim his budget. Guess what will happen? Local taxes will be increased to make up for the shortfall.

He is screwing the farm states by cutting subsidies. Think that will force the last of the family farms out of business while the coroprate farms gobble them up and get to write the aquisitions off their taxes? Expect rising food costs as well.

He wants to cut the amount of money going into Social Security and divert that to the stock market. Any British retirees care to tell us how the plan Maggie Thatcher put in place worked out?

The cherry on top? Cut veteran's funding, cut food stamps, cut medicare. You know, the people that need it the most. Continue tax breaks to the wealthiest. You know, the people that need it the least, but donate to his campaign.

Get ready America. It's coming with no kiss or vasilene.

[Yeager]

it is a proposed budget.  congress needs to get its two houses to agree then they have to send back to the admin and so on and so fourth until everyone agrees.  Thank god the courts arent part of the process lol

[GRUNHERZ]

It really must be easy when you put it simple terms.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest, no food for the poor. Bwahhh! What's next, let them eat cake?

[oboe]

Originally posted by Yeager
it is a proposed budget.  congress needs to get its two houses to agree then they have to send back to the admin and so on and so fourth until everyone agrees.  Thank god the courts arent part of the process lol

It's Bush's proposed budget, and as such shows the priorities of his administration.   In fact there are some targeted increases in some education programs in there.

How do you feel, Yeager, about cuts to veterans health care benefits?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by oboe
It's Bush's proposed budget, and as such shows the priorities of his administration.   In fact there are some targeted increases in some education programs in there.

How do you feel, Yeager, about cuts to veterans health care benefits?

Targeted decreases in wasteful programs.  Targeted decreases in welfare programs.
Targeted decreases in government sinkholes.
Tax programs that are more fair.

Sounds like a good budget to me.

[john9001]

i heard vets benifits have gone up 40% from 2001.

[Krusher]

The Democrats answer to any budget crisis is to raise taxes.  The only cuts they will ever support is defense and homeland security.  


Did anyone see the Joker (Nancy Pelosi) on "this week" with George Stephanopoulos?  She was asked what the dems counter to Bush's SS plan was.  She didn't even try to answer the question.  The pattern is consistent, scream blue bloody murder at anything and everything GWB proposes and counter with nothing.

[LePaul]

Yes...see a week ago, everyone wanted the deficit addressed and reduce spending.  This week, everyone is screaming NOOOO....NOT MY PROGRAMS...THEIRS!

[OneWordAnswer]

Budgets

[OneWordAnswer]

Originally posted by rpm
Yeah, Bush is going to cut Federal funding to schools to trim his budget. Guess what will happen? Local taxes will be increased to make up for the shortfall.

He is screwing the farm states by cutting subsidies. Think that will force the last of the family farms out of business while the coroprate farms gobble them up and get to write the aquisitions off their taxes? Expect rising food costs as well.

He wants to cut the amount of money going into Social Security and divert that to the stock market. Any British retirees care to tell us how the plan Maggie Thatcher put in place worked out?

The cherry on top? Cut veteran's funding, cut food stamps, cut medicare. You know, the people that need it the most. Continue tax breaks to the wealthiest. You know, the people that need it the least, but donate to his campaign.

Get ready America. It's coming with no kiss or vasilene.

Originally posted by rpm
Sure, let me use small words to make it easier.

1) Improve education.

2) Do 2 years national service, get 4 years tuition.

3) Fire Ashcroft.

4) Clean up the environment and develop alternative energy.

5) Mend the diplomatic bridges Bush has burned and get the world united against terrorism.

6) Affordable health care, nuff said.

7) Start rewarding companies that help America instead of ones bleeding it dry.

8) Shift the economy to where the working middle class can thrive.

9) Lower the deficit.

10) Restrict lobbying.


Simple enough?

Don't expect me to explain his entire platform. I gave you the links, use them.

Originally posted by rpm

Let me make my stance clear. Lower spending and social freedom are my motivating forces. We are creating a debt faster than any point in history while we do little on the social front.

Flipflop.

[oboe]

Here's what the President of the VFW had to say:
VFW Terms President's VA Budget Proposal Harmful to Veterans
VFW Appeals to Congress for Relief

Washington, D.C., Feb. 2, 2004--"The president ignored veterans in the State of the Union Address and with today's release of his 2005 budget, it is further evident that veterans are no longer a priority with this administration," said the leader of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., expressing dismay at the disgraceful 1.8% increase in veterans' medical care funding. "We look to Congress to reject the president's inadequate proposal and to provide a budget that fully acknowledges the debt our nation owes its veterans."

VFW Commander-in-Chief Edward S. Banas Sr., of Voluntown, Conn., said that with only a $500 million increase in medical funding, the administration's budget falls $2.6 billion short of what the Independent Budget recommends is needed to fully meet the demands for quality veterans' health care. "This funding package is a disgrace and a sham," Banas said.

How do you classify spending on veteran's health benefits, Martlet?   Wasteful program, welfare or government sinkhole?