BUSH BUDGET BUMMER BEYOND BELIEF
 

Remember Naldo asking what set of circumstances could make W. vulnerable in the coming election?



Bush Proposes Budget Boxed in by Deficits
Reuters

By Adam Entous and Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON - Facing a record $521 billion deficit, President Bush proposed a $2.4 trillion election-year budget on Monday that will cut dozens of domestic programs and set deficit-reduction goals that even fellow Republicans are skeptical he can meet.



Bush has overseen a dramatic worsening of the budget picture after inheriting a record surplus. He hopes to improve his fiscal image before the November election by promising to reduce the deficit by a third next year and in half by 2007.

The White House still expects the shortfall to total $1.35 trillion through 2009, and for government debt to rise from $8.1 trillion to $10.5 trillion.

"The government must exercise fiscal responsibility by limiting spending growth, focusing on the results of government programs, and cutting wasteful spending," Bush said.

But fiscal conservatives in both parties doubt Bush can deliver on his deficit reduction promises.

His fiscal 2005 budget left out the tens of billions sure to be needed next year to keep U.S. troops in Iraq (news - web sites) and omitted a fix for provisions in the tax code that will put a big burden on many middle-class households.

Homeland security and the military will be the budget's biggest winners with rises of nearly 10 percent and 7 percent respectively.

Defense contractors including Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co., Northrop Grumman Corp., Raytheon Co. and General Dynamics Corp. stand to benefit as Bush's $401.7 billion military budget increases spending on missile defense and on modernizing the Army.

Hardest hit were the departments of Agriculture and Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites), the Small Business Administration, and the Corps of Engineers, with cuts ranging from 1 percent for the Commerce Department (news - web sites) to as much as 49 percent for the General Services Administration.

To placate conservatives threatening a revolt, growth of discretionary spending -- outside of homeland security and defense -- would be capped at 0.5 percent. Because that is well below the inflation rate, it amounts to a cut in domestic programs and the lowest growth since 1993.

In a tacit acknowledgment that deficits are here to stay, Bush set the goal of bringing this year's record $521 billion shortfall down to $364 billion in fiscal 2005, to $241 billion in 2007 and then to $237 billion in 2009. There is no talk of surpluses in the foreseeable future.

Sigh. Do countries that spend less than three quarters of their budget on their military manage to do everything else a lot better than the U.S. or is our government really so loaded with dough that they can afford to do that and still keep up with other parts of the world?

"I'm sorry, Johnny, but you're going to have to pay for your own textbooks this year so a soldier stationed in Alaska can get a free rifle."

The budget isn't very unrealistic. The CBO has similar projections, and they had to take into account rather unpractical things by law. For example, they had to assume that the tax cuts will expire, which they won't. Consequently, they probably assumed a little less economic growth (something which the President's budget heavily relies on). They also had to assume that military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue at it's present rate all throughout the budget's length, which the President's budget does not.

To be more specific about the military spending in Iraq in Afghanistan, there were no numbers included in the President's budget for reconstruction. However, it was hinted that major spending on recontruction will not continue, will stop around 2005, and that whatever was spent there would not be so large as to drastically effect long term budget projections.

You might want to go back and look at the fact that before asking for 87 billion, the administrations prediction was that we'd spend about 1 billion.

Their track record on predicting what they'll spend on Iraqi reconstruction is really, really bad. So bad that it can only be incompetent or deliberatly incorrect.

Want to bet money right now, that assuming he's re-elected, within the first six months of his administration he asks for a minimum of 50 billion more in emergency funding for reconstruction?

I'm not so sure that the President can that many arms. At some point, things are going to have to give.

Also recall that the budget proposes caps on defense spending as well.

I'm not sure what your first sentence means.

The budget may well propose caps on defense spending. The 87 billion recently asked for and given was special emergency spending, extra bugetary. He'll do it again. You don't put it in the budget which is already swollen. You ask for it later becuase it's an emergency.

But is an emergency an emergency when you know it's going to be an emergency?

Sorry. The word "twist" should be after "can".

I think his strategy will be to delay and stonewall almost everything to do with until after the election. He's trying to pull a Nixon. He'd do well to recall what happened to Nixon.

Yeh, just like how Bush and his cronies decided to 'adjust' the projected cost of the prescription drug bill by increasing it by 1/3, after a tough fight in the legislature. This budget cannot be trusted one bit.

Our former finance minister will probably become the next prime minister here. Go Canada! :)