Bush got nearly everything he wanted with 2004 budget

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 1/29/04 | Alan Fram

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

President Bush is ready to roll out his 2005 budget just days after Congress finished this year's and demonstrated anew that the adage ''dead on arrival'' did not apply to most of his fiscal plans.

In what analysts and lawmakers agree was an impressive string of successes, Bush won most of the broad priorities he proposed in his $2.2 trillion budget for 2004.

He scored a major tax cut, new Medicare prescription drug benefits and money for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, the president held the spending that Congress controls to 3 percent growth.

That is a switch from some of his recent predecessors. Democrats who controlled at least one chamber of Congress under the first President Bush and under President Reagan often described those administrations' budgets as ''dead on arrival'' and forced both to accept tax and spending increases.

On the other hand, despite the GOP takeover of Congress two years into his tenure, President Clinton won repeated spending concessions from lawmakers wary of battling him.

Lawmakers have not been rubber stamps for the current president, trimming his defense request while spending more than he asked for highways, public works and veterans. They ignored Bush's plan to make tax cuts permanent, scaled back his proposal to stop taxing corporate dividends, blocked his energy bill and pockmarked spending measures with thousands of home-district projects.

Even so, aided by a friendly Republican-run Congress and a political climate that has diverted attention from record federal deficits, the budget that Bush proposed last February fared as well on Capitol Hill as any president's in recent memory, said legislators and other observers.

''The president practically wrote the omnibus'' $373 billion spending bill Congress completed last week, said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a group favoring balanced budgets. ''This president has been extremely successful in getting what he's asked.''

He's so successful that he has yet to cast a veto after three years in office. He often uses the threat of a veto to get his way.

Bush plans to release a $2.3 trillion budget for 2005 on Monday. In a bid for conservatives' support, it will propose holding spending for nondefense, nondomestic security programs to an increase of 0.5 percent. AP

BUSH VS. CONGRESS

How President Bush's proposals for 13 spending bills for 2004 compared with the bills approved by lawmakers:

Agriculture: Bush $17.1 billion, final bill $16.8 billion.
Commerce, Justice, State: Bush $37.7 billion, final $37.6 billion.
Defense: Bush $371.8 billion, final $368.2 billion.
Energy and water: Bush $26.9 billion, final $27.3 billion.
Foreign aid: Bush $18.9 billion, final $17.5 billion.
Homeland Security: Bush $28.4 billion, final $29.2 billion.
Interior: Bush $19.6 billion, final $19.5 billion.
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education: Bush $138 billion, final $139 billion.
Legislative branch: Bush $3.7 billion, final $3.5 billion.
Military construction: Bush $9.1 billion, final $9.3 billion.
Transportation, Treasury: Bush $27.8 billion, final $28.1 billion.
Veterans, Housing and Urban Development: Bush $89.4 billion, final $90.8 billion.
Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan: Bush $87 billion, final $87.5 billion.
Totals: Bush $876 billion, final $873 billion.

[rllngrk33]

But, I thought the Republican Congress was spending money like a drunken sailor.

[The Bat Lady]

No I guess just the Republican President.

[rintense]

That's pretty damn impressive.

[ravingnutter]

That's pretty damn impressive.

Yes it is...but you couldn't tell it by the bashing that is going on on this thread. I had to scream to be heard...I think they've lost their minds.

[KQQL]

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush's new budget will project that the just-enacted prescription drug program and Medicare overhaul will cost one-third more than previously estimated and will predict a deficit exceeding $500 billion for this year, congressional aides said Thursday.

Instead of a $400 billion 10-year price tag, Bush's 2005 budget will estimate the Medicare bill's cost at about $540 billion, said aides who spoke on condition of anonymity. Bush will submit on Monday a federal budget for the fiscal year 2005, which starts next Oct. 1.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1067682/posts?page=1

[Diddle E. Squat]

But watch half the following posters completely ignore this part:

Lawmakers have not been rubber stamps for the current president, trimming his defense request while spending more than he asked for highways, public works and veterans. They ignored Bush's plan to make tax cuts permanent, scaled back his proposal to stop taxing corporate dividends, blocked his energy bill and pockmarked spending measures with thousands of home-district projects.

...while they rush to proclaim themselves 'true conservatives' and bitterly wail that they are washing their hands of that 'liberal Bush'. Pontius Pilate Conservatism seems to be all the rage these days. Pilate washed his hands in an attempt to avoid responsibility and avoid making a difficult decision, yet his action(or inaction) still resulted in a man's death and is ultimately viewed by history as a copout.

[smith288]

Bush plans to release a $2.3 trillion budget for 2005 on Monday. In a bid for conservatives' support, it will propose holding spending for nondefense, nondomestic security programs to an increase of 0.5 percent.

Instead of holding spending to .5%, what if we cut spending on nondefense programs altogether?

[George W. Bush]

In a bid for conservatives' support, it will propose holding spending for nondefense, nondomestic security programs to an increase of 0.5 percent.

Obviously a major conservative victory.

</sarcasm>

[ravingnutter]

A couple of other related articles for ya:

US Snow: Bush Committed To Halving Deficit In 5 Years

Bush to propose spending freeze

[plain talk]

This article is right on! I'm voting for Bush only because he is the lesser of two evils. Response: So you support evil?

That was as far as I got. Not too impressed with the reasoning in that post. That being said - I love Bush for many reasons but I must say when it comes to the budget, he's a freakin' RINO. Of course Gore would have been worst. Even so, someone needs to slap that Texan upside the head and get him back on the path.

[BureaucratusMaximus]

I had not seen either of those 2 articles. Thank you for posting the links, as they lend to important facts to shape a conservative's perspective of GWB.

When looking at the whole picture...it seems that the attitude of support and patience with our prez is needed right now, regardless of immigration and medicare reform (those things pissed me off too, but lets fight them in the Congress/Senate and not throw the baby out with the bathwater). %100 principled conservatism is just not a possibility after the country has been through X42's admin and 80+ years of New Deal socialism. IMHO...we have to stick with our best electable and supportable shot. Right now...thats through the Republicans and GWB.

[jgrubbs]

[Imal]

Bush is controversial, if nothing else. Although I disagree with him on several issues, I cannot fault his cleverness as a politician.

Anyone who doubts Bush's skill in politics should take a look at the state of affairs in Texas before and after his reign as governor.

He is now applying his subtle skills to the federal government, quietly dismantling a dazzling array of dynasties and sacred cows on the one hand while preoccupying his opponents with "spotlight" issues on the other. His apparent (and temporary) concession on one issue hides the knife in his hand for another.

All the while, he disarms his enemies by getting them to "misunderestimate" him. Just like back in Texas.

Bush seems to work from Abraham Lincoln's playbook, silencing some enemies by appointing them to office, and neutralizing others by hijacking their causes and bending them to his will. And all the while humbly and patiently enduring their virulent insults while carefully, deliberately and mercilessly pulling the rugs out from under every one of them.

The howls of protest from friends and foes alike do nothing to sway him from his agenda, a fact that becomes clearer with the passage of time. Just like Lincoln.

In fact, it is a concern of mine that Bush indeed seeks to follow in Lincoln's footsteps, upon considering the consequences should he do so. There is already far too much power concentrated in the office of the President and, as under Lincoln, Bush seeks even more.

If we wins re-election, and I very much suspect he will, we will all become witnesses to his real agenda, unfettered by the need for a more diplomatic approach. Then the kid gloves will come off, and the fur will really fly.

Misunderestimate him at your own risk.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Isn't that the guy with a Clymer for a running mate?

[Howlin]

Thanks for those, R.

[Howlin]

No kidding?

[MJY1288]

OMG, I can't tell you how many times I get flamed around here for what you just said, (even by you)

Welcome to the land of reason, we can not take this country back over night, it will take at least 2 more conservative Presidents before we start seeing real change, and if Bush tried to change things overnight, it would never happen and we will watch John Kerry take the oath of office next January.

I appreciate the changes Bush has made in the areas of environment, Foreign aid, National Defense and Foreign Policy, and I know that would not happen with a RAT in the White House

Cheers

[Howlin]

***A "Because It's Hard to Find the Good News" ping!***

[Diddle E. Squat]

Jim Clymer, Constitution Party VP candidate.

Googled to confirm, and found this:

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:v7r5ICyn6OAJ:www.politics1.com/p2004.htm+clymer+%22vice+president%22+peroutka+%22constitution+party%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8