2.1 Trillion Isn't Enough?

[YogsVR4]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...wh/bush_budget

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) sent Congress a $2.57 trillion budget plan Monday that would boost spending on the military and homeland security but seeks spending cuts across a wide swath of other government programs. Bush's budget would reduce subsidies paid to farmers, cut health programs for poor people and veterans and trim spending on the environment and education.

"It is a budget that sets priorities," Bush said after a meeting with his Cabinet. "It's a budget that reduces and eliminates redundancy. It's a budget that's a lean budget."

Bush acknowledged that it would be difficult to eliminate popular programs but he said programs must prove their worth. "I look forward to explaining to the American people why we made some of the requests that we made in our budget," the president told reporters.

Joshua Bolten, Bush's budget director, said, "Are we going to get everything we asked for? No." But he predicted Congress would likely accept the administration's broad priorities. He said he entered the upcoming congressional budget battle with a "happy spirit."

Democrats immediately branded the budget a "hoax" because it left out the huge future costs for the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) and did not include the billions of dollars that will be needed for Bush's No. 1 domestic priority, overhauling Social Security (news - web sites).

Bolten said the administration would soon be coming forward with a supplemental request for an additional $81 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said that request was reflected in the overall spending projections in Bush's budget for the current year and into 2006.

But he said including further additional spending for Iraq and Afghanistan "wouldn't be responsible" because it would represent guesses on what will be needed. Bolten also said that even if transition costs for Social Security had been included, the president would still be able to meet his goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 as a percentage of the total economy.

The budget — the most austere of Bush's presidency — would eliminate or vastly scale back 150 government programs. It will spark months of contentious debate in Congress, where lawmakers will fight to protect their favored programs.

House Democratic Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) of California called Bush's budget "a hoax on the American people. The two issues that dominated the president's State of the Union address — Iraq and Social Security — are nowhere to be found in this budget."

The spending document projects that the deficit will hit a record $427 billion this year, the third straight year that the red ink in dollar terms has set a record. Bush projects that the deficit will fall to $390 billion in 2006 and gradually decline to $233 billion in 2009 and $207 billion in 2010.

Bush's 2006 spending plan, for the budget year that begins next Oct. 1, counts on a healthy economy to boost revenues by 6.1 percent to $2.18 trillion. Spending, meanwhile, would grow by 3.5 percent to $2.57 trillion.

However, outside defense, homeland security and the government's huge mandatory programs such as Social Security, Bush proposes cutting spending by 0.5 percent, the first such proposed cut since the Reagan administration battled with its own soaring deficits.

Of 23 major government agencies, 12 would see their budget authority reduced next year, including cuts of 9.6 percent at Agriculture, 5.6 percent at the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites), 6.7 percent at Transportation and 11.5 percent at Housing and Urban Development.

In his budget message to Congress, Bush said, "In order to sustain our economic expansion, we must continue pro-growth policies and enforce even greater spending restraint across the federal government."

But Democrats complained that Bush was resorting to draconian cuts that would hurt the needy in order to protect his first term tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthy.

"This budget is part of the Republican plan to cut Social Security benefits while handing out lavish tax breaks for multimillionaires," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Its cuts in veterans programs, health care and education reflect the wrong priorities and its huge deficits are fiscally irresponsible."

Democrats also contended that the budget masked the costs of some Bush initiatives such as making his first-term tax cuts permanent by only making deficit projections through 2010. The budget puts the cost of making Bush's tax cuts permanent at $1.1 trillion through 2015 but does not show how that would impact the deficit at that time.

"This budget paints a misleading picture by providing no deficit figures after 2010 and by omitting the full long-term costs of the president's policies on Social Security privatization, taxes and operations in Iraq," said Rep. John Spratt (news, bio, voting record), top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.

Bush's budget proposed increasing military spending by 4.8 percent to $419.3 billion in 2006. However, even with the increase a number of major weapons programs, including Bush's missile defense system and the B-2 stealth bomber, would see cuts from this year's levels.

Aside from defense and homeland security, favored Bush programs included a new $1.5 billion high school performance program, expanded Pell Grants for low-income college students and more support for community health clinics.

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.

Other programs set for cuts include the Army Corps of Engineers, whose dam and other waterway projects are extremely popular in Congress; the Energy Department; several health programs under the Health and Human Services (news - web sites) Department and federal subsidies for the Amtrak passenger railroad.

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 Affairs Department makes for health care. The administration proposed no savings for Medicare, the giant health care program for the elderly.

Many of the spending cuts in the budget are repeats of efforts the administration has proposed and Congress has rejected previously.

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

The budget is higher then all but four countried entire GDP! Insane that our congressmen can't stay within that amount. Though the defecit isn't a big a concern as some make it out to be, the fact is the amount of money they are taking in is nearly beyond comprehension. 2.1 TRILLION. 2.1 million million. $2,100,000,000,000.00 and its not enough.

Slash spending more. There are entire programs that should go by the wayside. Eliminate the department of transportation and let the states take care of their own (why should the federal government get it before its sent back to the states). Hold defense outlays to the rate of inflation. I have many many more ways to cut the budget, and it would upset just about everyone who has their own pet projects.

Bush's biggest failing is his inability to say 'NO' to spending measures and to make hard choices on slashing spending. Taxes do not need to be raised. 2.1 TRILLION IS ENOUGH!

[TexasF355F1]

Damn

[Heep]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

5.6 percent at the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites),

DIE ECO-WEENIES!

[taranaki]

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,

there is a saying among farmers..."why farm corn when you can farm the government?".

If he wants to trim that amount, just how much will be left to subsidise corporate greed and general inefficiency? These 'farmers' operate in a protecteed industry anyways, at the expense of the consumer.Many of the products that you are paying through the nose for can be made to the highest standards and imported for a fraction of the cost.

[fredjacksonsan]

Bush's budget doesn't address the continuing cost of the war in Iraq, either. That's funded through "supplemental" monies funneled/approved through Congress.

I heard an address by a local politician, he said, "We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem."

True also for the US Gov't.



If I ran my household finances the way the US Government does, I would be in prison.

[Raz_Kaz]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

If I ran my household finances the way the US Government does, I would be in prison.

LOL, oh so true

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

If I ran my household finances the way the US Government does, I would be in prison.

You've never borrowed money? Or even borrowed multiple times your annual income? Most of us have had mortgages that ran a few times our annual income. Though I agree that the accounting practices of our government is horrendous, its not criminal.

There are just a multitude of things that should not be funded which would lower the cost and eventually lead to further reductions in income taxes.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

You've never borrowed money? Or even borrowed multiple times your annual income? Most of us have had mortgages that ran a few times our annual income. Though I agree that the accounting practices of our government is horrendous, its not criminal.

There are just a multitude of things that should not be funded which would lower the cost and eventually lead to further reductions in income taxes.

I've got a mortgage, vehicle loan, and school loans that are all being paid off. But to go ahead and borrow another, say 100K each and every year would be irresponsible and would lead me to bankruptcy at the least. There will come a point where the US government will only be able to pay the interest on all the loans, if the current trends continue.

I'm just a big big fan of balanced budget.

[YogsVR4]

Consider that the GDP (income) of the country is about 12 trillion dollars. The over budget amount is about 400 billion. Thats 3.33%. In other words if your income was 100K, you would be taking out a loan for about 4K each year which is a whole lot less then a mortage or car loan.

That was not a justification of having a perpetual debt, but its just a reminder that everything is relative. 400 billion is several Bill Gates but only a small fraction of the national income.

The reality is we have 300 million people in this country which comes out to be about 40K per man woman and child being sent to the federal government. There is another 10K sent in state and local taxes (income, sales etc). Children don't pay. The unemployed don't pay. Low income earners don't pay. Well, you can see that the tax burden is pretty damn high on a lot of people. I say all that to emphasize that spending needs to be slashed dramatically - first to bring the budget more in balance and to then let people keep their own money.

[dugie6551]

I can't wait to see the reaction when the US goes bankrupt for spending on these "wars".

I read somewhere that the Russians lost a whole wack of money when they were fighting in Afganistan for 12 years (?).

And where is Russia now? Nobody at the time thought Russia was not going to exist in the future.

This is what the terrorists want to happen to the US..

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Consider that the GDP (income) of the country is about 12 trillion dollars. The over budget amount is about 400 billion. Thats 3.33%. In other words if your income was 100K, you would be taking out a loan for about 4K each year which is a whole lot less then a mortage or car loan.

That was not a justification of having a perpetual debt, but its just a reminder that everything is relative. 400 billion is several Bill Gates but only a small fraction of the national income.

The reality is we have 300 million people in this country which comes out to be about 40K per man woman and child being sent to the federal government. There is another 10K sent in state and local taxes (income, sales etc). Children don't pay. The unemployed don't pay. Low income earners don't pay. Well, you can see that the tax burden is pretty damn high on a lot of people. I say all that to emphasize that spending needs to be slashed dramatically - first to bring the budget more in balance and to then let people keep their own money.

Thanks for the math, Yogs. I agree 100% about spending needing to be slashed (my bold type above). There's no reason a person making 100K per year would have to borrow 4K to make ends meet; it's ridiculous. There is plenty of room to lower spending - it's not an income problem.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by dugie6551

I can't wait to see the reaction when the US goes bankrupt for spending on these "wars".

I read somewhere that the Russians lost a whole wack of money when they were fighting in Afganistan for 12 years (?).

And where is Russia now? Nobody at the time thought Russia was not going to exist in the future.

This is what the terrorists want to happen to the US..

Damn Dugie, that's pretty insightful. If the terrorists have thought it out thoroughly, they'd expect the US to have a massive response. Maybe they're playing the long term game: Sure, the US can attack wherever and win, but it will cost them a whole lot of money to do so. There isn't an endless supply of money available, so when they run out they will go away and perhaps be destroyed.

If they were able to couple a strategy like that with an oil embargo, it would be effective.

[dugie6551]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Damn Dugie, that's pretty insightful. If the terrorists have thought it out thoroughly, they'd expect the US to have a massive response. Maybe they're playing the long term game: Sure, the US can attack wherever and win, but it will cost them a whole lot of money to do so. There isn't an endless supply of money available, so when they run out they will go away and perhaps be destroyed.

If they were able to couple a strategy like that with an oil embargo, it would be effective.

It could be possible ... especially when the US is over-spending now on the "wars" in Iraq and Afganistan. Now they are talking about (future/possible) military action against Iran and North Korea.

How much money (or military people) do they think they will have ?

[fredjacksonsan]

At the current rate, the barrel may empty out pretty quick. There will be a point that the US gov't will no longer be able to borrow money as it's too far in debt, and the dollar will tumble in value....

[dugie6551]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

At the current rate, the barrel may empty out pretty quick. There will be a point that the US gov't will no longer be able to borrow money as it's too far in debt, and the dollar will tumble in value....

... and Canada will be the major super power of the WORLD !!!! hehehe