Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush's Budget for 2005 Seeks to Rein In Domestic Costs
NY Times ^ | January.4,2004 | ROBERT PEAR

Posted on 01/03/2004 2:17:20 PM PST by Reagan Man

WASHINGTON, 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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: budget; cbo; domesticspending
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

1 posted on 01/03/2004 2:17:20 PM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: All

Donate Here By Secure Server

3 posted on 01/03/2004 2:19:50 PM PST by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
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.
4 posted on 01/03/2004 2:21:46 PM PST by KantianBurke (Don't Tread on Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pray and forgive; Reagan Man
From the article:

Administration officials said the president's budget would also slow the growth of spending at the National Institutes of Health

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.

Doesn't sound like a reduction to me.

GWB's BIG GOVERNMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

5 posted on 01/03/2004 2:24:15 PM PST by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

6 posted on 01/03/2004 2:25:36 PM PST by byteback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Abolish federal aid to the public schools. The teachers' union will never support a conservative administration, even a "compassionate" one.
7 posted on 01/03/2004 2:26:54 PM PST by MegaSilver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
How much of a surplus would we have if he eliminated all unconstitutional spending?
8 posted on 01/03/2004 2:28:09 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
He must really think that voters are stoopid.
9 posted on 01/03/2004 2:28:21 PM PST by At _War_With_Liberals
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Unconstitutional spending is in the eye of the beholder. ;^)

If we cut the budget in half, a 50% reduction, I'd say we could eliminate the national debt ($7 trillion) in about seven years. Cut the budget by 25%, we'd elminate the national debt in 14 years. Even with a 10% reduction, it would take some 35 years to eliminate the national debt.

And there is the considereation for national defense.

The #1 Constitutional priority is national defense.

10 posted on 01/03/2004 2:35:47 PM PST by Reagan Man (The few, the proud, the conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain
If he's proposing 3 percent this year, it's going to be at least 6 percent once he's done horsetrading with his "conservative" friends in Congress. That's how it has worked every time up 'til now.
11 posted on 01/03/2004 2:50:45 PM PST by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
will rein in the growth of domestic spending without alienating politically influential constituencies.

Does this mean that they will eliminate costly, constituent-driven boondoggles that help our opponents in the War, such as ethanol subsidies? Somehow, we doubt it. We'll hear our leaders continue to blandly and inaccurately assert that such boondoggle subsidies "don't amount to much."

12 posted on 01/03/2004 4:44:44 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pray and forgive
You heard it here first, the President is going to reduce the size of government.

Great news!! Maybe he can reduce it to something close to the domestic size he found it when he became President.

Then again, Quayle may not have been able to spell 'potatoe' but GWB can't spell V-E-T-O.

13 posted on 01/03/2004 4:47:14 PM PST by RJCogburn ("I need a good judge."......Lucky Ned Pepper to Mattie Ross of near Dardenelle in Yell County)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pray and forgive
You heard it here first, the President is going to reduce the size of government.

No, this isn't the first time I've heard this or any Republican president say this. Funny thing is it has never actually happened IIRC.

At least he didn't say "The era of big government is over".

14 posted on 01/03/2004 4:51:28 PM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver
Abolish federal aid to the public schools.

Abolish public schools. Abolish Dept of Education.

Allow local communities to find principals, teachers, and custodial workers, hire them, give them a mandate, and leave them alone to educate.Forbid them to belong to a union.

Allow the principal to deal with 'problem' kids, with corporal punishment. Send the corrupters to a juvenile disciplinary center, and keep them there until they are 'trained'!

15 posted on 01/03/2004 4:52:02 PM PST by pageonetoo (Rights, what Rights'. You're kidding, right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Cutting spending is a political impossibility. Reagan could not do it. Bush cannot do it. Entrenched interests won't permit it and the American people, for a variety of reasons, punish politicians for cuts. Instead, we should look to privatize services where possible.

Another way to alter the system is to create incentives for bureaucracies to cut costs. I would offer hefty financial bonuses to Secretaries who cut spending in their departments. All of the upper management would get bonuses in the tens of thousands of dollars for each % point they cut in their budget. That would offer a countervailing force to the instiutional pressure of demanding an increasing budget.
16 posted on 01/03/2004 4:53:49 PM PST by jagrmeister (I'm not a conservative. I don't seek to conserve, I seek to reform.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pray and forgive
He's only proposing reducing the growth. The left considers a cut in growth as a cut. It's more BS from the Bush team.
17 posted on 01/03/2004 5:02:19 PM PST by VRWC For Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Here is what I do not understand. Good jobs have left our economy because business has become more productive and efficient by downsizing its work force. When is government going to get productive and efficient and start laying off workers? That would be a deficit reducer. Of course, the boy who claimed to invent the internet, also claimed to reinvent government. I don't want it reinvented, I would just like to see it downsized at the same rate big business has had to downsize its workforce.
18 posted on 01/03/2004 5:04:31 PM PST by Biblebelter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biblebelter
That and a flat tax. Alot of these government jobs could be replaced with a computer. At least we shoould consider out sourcing them to India. ;)
19 posted on 01/03/2004 5:08:17 PM PST by VRWC For Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pray and forgive
You heard it here first, the President is going to reduce the size of government.

Sorry I didn't hear anything of the sort

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.

How is increasing expenditures reducing government? Interesting also that the 'discretionary spending'(i.e. unconstitutional wastes of money) doesn't include the latest boondoggle to come from the 'conservatives', namely massive expansions in Medicare and Medicaid

20 posted on 01/03/2004 5:10:16 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
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.

I am one such conservative/unappeaser! Those unhappy with the status quo move the world while others run. We moved the party back to the right.

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.

This is great news for conservatives.

21 posted on 01/03/2004 5:33:33 PM PST by Kay Soze (Fiscally - whats the difference between Hillary and W?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jagrmeister
>>>Cutting spending is a political impossibility.

Spoken like a true "Pragmatist".

>>>Reagan could not do it.

Reagan did cut federal spending. He lowered discreationary spending in his first three years in office. If Reagan had a GOP majority control like PresBush has, he would have cut government a lot more.

>>>Bush cannot do it.

Bush doesn't want to do it. Yet. I've been holding out for some serious downsizing in a second Bush-Cheney term and this may be an early indicator of things to come.

I do not recommend draconian spending cuts and support political incrementaism. Incentives given for good management efforts are fine with me, but that only scrapes the surface. To kick start some serious fiscal responsibility in the federal government, I would support a spending freeze for one year.

Politics is a slow process, but at the rate that Social Security and Medicare are growing, before we know it these two entitlement programs will consume half of the federal budget. Right now SS and Medicare eat up 1/3rd of the federal budget and "Human Resources" --- aka. SOCIAL SPENDING --- consumes over 66% of the federal budgetary expenditures. There needs to be real reform of these two out of control federal programs, before its too late.

22 posted on 01/03/2004 5:52:46 PM PST by Reagan Man (The few, the proud, the conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Biblebelter
>>>When is government going to get productive and efficient and start laying off workers?

I think PresBush and the GOP Congress will have a rare opportunity in the next several years to start to make the federal governemnt more efficient and effective in its operations. There must be a serious effort made in a second Bush-Cheney term to reduce the high levels of waste, fraud and abuse that currently exist in the federal bureaucracy. Before its too late.

23 posted on 01/03/2004 5:58:59 PM PST by Reagan Man (The few, the proud, the conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I'd like to see steady REDUCTIONS in the budget of 3 percent by President Compassionate Conservative.
24 posted on 01/03/2004 6:04:56 PM PST by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Duh. We called this last year.
Spend on National Security first, foremost, and much.
Cite the deficit as a reason to cut the fat.
If anybody was hanging around and waiting for the remaining seven appropriations to get their fat for their district, they can wait until hell freezes over.

This is an election year - nobody will get fat - especially any Democrats helping his opposition.

Anybody who opposes this will be told, "What is the alternative? Do you want your taxes raised?" Dems will have to run on raising taxes.

And people call W. an idiot. Wish I was an idiot, too.
25 posted on 01/03/2004 6:07:58 PM PST by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
And? You oppose this? If so, why?
26 posted on 01/03/2004 6:08:45 PM PST by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_090903/content/institute.guest.html

The facts disagrees with you. Reagan raised discretionary spending in his first 3 years by 6.8%. Don't believe me, look the chart over which breaks it down by department.

I agree that Medicare and SS are the big ones that need to be dealt with. Ideally we can return the obligation to the individual through personal retirement accounts.
27 posted on 01/03/2004 6:10:10 PM PST by jagrmeister (I'm not a conservative. I don't seek to conserve, I seek to reform.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
They have to - in the next two years, 50% of all Federal employees will be eligible for retirement.

He has the opportunity to allow those positions to go unfilled. An opportunity we won't see again.
28 posted on 01/03/2004 6:12:09 PM PST by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
None, hopefully. A " surplus " only means that the populace is being OVER TAXED .
29 posted on 01/03/2004 6:12:33 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
We moved the party back to the right.

You need to get it back to the center, first.

30 posted on 01/03/2004 6:14:10 PM PST by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Biblebelter
Excellent point, Biblebelter! I work for the Federal government, and my agency could reduce personnel by 50 percent if rules on firing Federal employees were changed and managers were given incentives to cut costs.

We have employees who brag about how little work they do. Something has to be changed.

(And if downsizing comes and I'm one of the ones laid off, so be it. Being on the Federal payroll is a privilege and a responsibility, not a right.)

31 posted on 01/03/2004 6:17:57 PM PST by Our man in washington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: billbears
How is increasing expenditures reducing government?

It is reducing the relative size as opposed to the absolute size. If government increases at 3% and GDP increases at 5%, then the government gets small relative to GDP.

Of course, I would love to see someone reduce the actual size of government, but I doubt the political will to do it exists in anyone with the actual ability to do it.

32 posted on 01/03/2004 6:22:13 PM PST by Tennessean4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Funny!

But you know as well as I the power of this forum and I intend to continue to use it to push the party back to center and then right.

Even at the ire of many so called conserrvatives that are here.
33 posted on 01/03/2004 6:22:42 PM PST by Kay Soze (Fiscally - whats the difference between Hillary and W?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo
Send the corrupters to a juvenile disciplinary center, and keep them there until they are 'trained'!

I liked your ideas until this last sentence here. The problem is that such correcting centers don't seem to be very effective in correcting youth. For delinquent (sp?) young people, I personally would prescribe either:

1. Catholic school (if there's nuns)
2. Boot camp

34 posted on 01/03/2004 10:11:00 PM PST by MegaSilver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jagrmeister
>>>The facts disagrees with you. Reagan raised discretionary spending in his first 3 years by 6.8%. Don't believe me, look the chart over which breaks it down by department.

You better read the chart on Rush`s website again. The facts back me up 100%. You're wrong.

There were actually two different CATO Institute articles and two different sets of charts on this subject matter. One was released in April 2003 and was called On Spending, Bush Is No Reagan. The other article and chart was posted on CATO in August 2003, using the same title, On Spending, Bush Is No Reagan. The August 2003 article was an updated version based on a recently released mid-session review of the 2004 budget by the Bush administration.

Both the early chart and the revamped version clearly indicate that PresReagan lowered discreationary spending his first three years in office.

I'll post both charts for your benefit.

Here's a key part from the August 2003 CATO article that says it all.

"... Reagan cut real nondefense discretionary outlays by 13.5 percent compared to a 20.8 percent increase under Bush."

35 posted on 01/03/2004 11:06:55 PM PST by Reagan Man (The few, the proud, the conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jagrmeister
In addition, SS and Medicare aren't part of the discretionary budget spending. They're part of the mandatory entitlement expenditures.
36 posted on 01/03/2004 11:13:51 PM PST by Reagan Man (The few, the proud, the conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I'm aware of the difference. I never claimed Medicare and Social Security were discretionary. Read the chart- Reagan didn't cut spending in his first three years.
37 posted on 01/04/2004 12:21:12 AM PST by jagrmeister (I'm not a conservative. I don't seek to conserve, I seek to reform.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
You've changed your argument. Here is what you said initially: "He lowered discretionary spending in his first three years in office." That is not supported by either chart. But it's clear Reagan had a better record on addressing non-defense discretionary spending than Bush.
38 posted on 01/04/2004 12:26:59 AM PST by jagrmeister (I'm not a conservative. I don't seek to conserve, I seek to reform.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jagrmeister
The facts disagrees with you. Reagan raised discretionary spending in his first 3 years by 6.8%.

You're right. Reagan had to agree to spending increases in order to get the Dems to pass his programs, including tax cuts.

And while the tax cuts soon resulted in increased revenue to the Treasury, the increased spending still caused a deficit.
The lying Dems have claimed ever since that the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficits.

39 posted on 01/04/2004 12:35:46 AM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MegaSilver
Send the corrupters to a juvenile disciplinary center, and keep them there until they are 'trained'! -page

The problem is that such correcting centers don't seem to be very effective in correcting youth. For delinquent (sp?) young people, I personally would prescribe either:

1. Catholic school (if there's nuns)

2. Boot camp -Mega

We are on the same page, just reading different words... The main thing is to separate the trouble-makers, and begin ,b.teaching again!

I don't think they even teach Latin, now, do they? Much less, Chaucer, Will'm Shakespeare, or the Bible. Nor, do they allow our children to read good old 'Uncle Remus', regardless of its un-PC structures...

Whatever has happened to the public schools (rhetorical question)? They certainly aren't properly educating, nor preparing...

40 posted on 01/04/2004 5:51:28 AM PST by pageonetoo (Rights, what Rights'. You're kidding, right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo
I don't think they even teach Latin, now, do they? Much less, Chaucer, Will'm Shakespeare, or the Bible. Nor, do they allow our children to read good old 'Uncle Remus', regardless of its un-PC structures... Whatever has happened to the public schools (rhetorical question)? They certainly aren't properly educating, nor preparing...

As a recent graduate (2002) of the public school system, let me tell you what my particular high school (which at the time had 6,000+ students, making it the largest in the country, IIRC) featured in its classes, and had as graduation requrements:

-4 English courses. I took the basic course for English I, which featured some grammar education in the first few weeks, then moved on to Romeo and Juliet, as well as a couple of other stories that I forget. Took honors for the other three, and was treated to books such as The Hot Zone, The Great Gatsby, various Edgar Allan Poe stories, Lord of the Flies, A Streetcar Named Desire, and Hamlet. And that's just what I remember.

-2 foreign language courses. There wasn't any Latin (dead language, but the school offered Spanish, German, and French. Due to living in South Florida, I took two Spanish courses. Didn't do too terribly well, but I passed.

-3 math courses, one of which must be an Algebra course (with Algebra II as a graduation requirement). The school offered all the way up to AP Calculus. Didn't take it, but it was there.

-3 social studies courses, one of which must be American History, another which must be a basic economics (how to read the stock market, supply and demand, etc) course. Plenty of AP classes offered here.

-3 science courses. This is where my old high school excelled. I think their science selection outdoes my college's... I personally took geology, biology I, and human anatomy.

That's just the core stuff, in addition to various other requirements... I did pretty well at the various AP classes, psychology especially (I got a 3 on the exam--good when you consider that I didn't do too well in-class, and went in expecting a 1). Public education is better than people give it credit for.

The main problem is the students themselves--they don't want to learn. The school had to rig attendance numbers by taking attendance in second hour (too many people came in late), and skipping was a huge problem. A good number of those who showed up for class were too busy fiddling with their cell phones and talking about who was dating who to pay attention to the lecture.

Rant off.
41 posted on 01/04/2004 6:41:18 AM PST by Terpfen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
... As a recent graduate (2002) of the public school system,...

Latin was a dead language when I graduated in 1965, but it is the foundation for much of the worlds' literature, and great writings.

The requirements, to graduate, do not reflect the value of the classes offered. With PCism, much of the good stuff, in literature, is excluded, while "I have two mommies" has been substitued.

Without a doubt, attitude plays a lot in your education, but I have a challenge for you. Without looking them up, please quote for me, the first paragraph of Lincoln's Gettysburg address (and tell me in what state it was given), type the whole Preamble to the Constitution, and The first paragraph of the Declaration of Indepence. If you cannot do it without cheating, please so state, in reply!

My next challenge would be for you to tell me about George Washington Carver, and his impact on society, then name the 23rd President, and Vice President. Then tell me the 49th and 50th states added, without looking them up, in order!

As previously stated, I graduated in 1965. I still remember them...!

42 posted on 01/04/2004 8:00:32 AM PST by pageonetoo (Rights, what Rights'. You're kidding, right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Now that the Geezers get free pills, nobody else is going to want me to pay for theirs.

Yeah, right .

Sure.

Thanks mucho for opening the barn door for Socialized Medicine JorgeCare there, Dubya.

43 posted on 01/04/2004 8:29:21 AM PST by putupon (Jorge only knows how to spell "Right" in Arabic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jagrmeister
I haven't changed my argument. The debate was about whether PresReagan cut federal spending and the answer is, yes he did cut federal spending. PresReagan cut federal spending by lowering discretionary spending. Specifically, non-military discretionary spending. Both charts and both articles specifically talk about Reagan reducing government spending. Period. You're engaging in sophistry. In both charts, the minuses indicate reductions in spending.

Further, here's what it says in the link you provided to RushLimbaugh.com.

"RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie and a number of Republicans insist they're still the party of Ronald Reagan and smaller government. Well, there's no better way to test that claim than this direct comparison. Example: In Reagan's first three years, spending on energy went down 42.5%; in the first three years of the Bush administration, spending on energy went up 19%. Reagan sent real discretionary spending on "Education, Training, Employment and Social Services" down 32.6%; Bush sent it up 26.8%. On health (before the clamor for national nanny care) Reagan, down 15.6%; Bush up 36.8%. General government went up 4.2% in Reagan's first three years; under Bush, it went up 29.1%. You can say you're Reaganesque all you want; the numbers disagree.

44 posted on 01/04/2004 10:01:02 AM PST by Reagan Man (The few, the proud, the conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
>>>... Reagan had to agree to spending increases in order to get the Dems to pass his programs, including tax cuts.

You're wrong. That was not true in Reagan's first three years in office, which is what this debate is all about. There are mandatory expenditures and discretionary expenditures. Mandatory expenditures can't be touched without Congress changing statutory law through newly enacted legislation. When you take Reagan's defense increases off the table, what's left are all non-mandatory spending on individual departments.

The CATO analysis from August 2003, specifcally indicates PresReagan reduced non-military discretionary spending by 13.5% in his first three years in office. PresBush has increased that same discretionary spending by 20.8%.

45 posted on 01/04/2004 10:44:32 AM PST by Reagan Man (The few, the proud, the conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Yes, you did change your argument. You first claimed discretionary spending was down in Reagan's first 3 years- in fact it increased from 5-6%, depending on whose chart you look at. It's irrelevant that he made some cuts here or there, as Bush has done the same, because in aggregate discretionary spending increased.
46 posted on 01/04/2004 2:51:22 PM PST by jagrmeister (I'm not a conservative. I don't seek to conserve, I seek to reform.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: jagrmeister
You said and I quote:
"Cutting spending is a political impossibility. Reagan could not do it".

The facts speak for themselves. Reagan cut federal spending and there is nothing irrelevent about that. You've been proven wrong. End of discussion.

47 posted on 01/04/2004 3:44:35 PM PST by Reagan Man (The few, the proud, the conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
LOL. Discretionary spending went up under Reagan. That's a fact. Are you that dense?
48 posted on 01/04/2004 4:02:29 PM PST by jagrmeister (I'm not a conservative. I don't seek to conserve, I seek to reform.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: jagrmeister
>>>Are you that dense?

I'm not dense at all, but its quite obvious reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits. As a homework assignment, I want to to go back and reread what I said in RE:#44, first paragraph, sentence 3 & 4. Then proceed to RE:#45 and read the final paragraph. Take you time and concentrate. It's self-explanatory.

49 posted on 01/04/2004 4:36:41 PM PST by Reagan Man (The few, the proud, the conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: pageonetoo
Without a doubt, attitude plays a lot in your education, but I have a challenge for you. Without looking them up, please quote for me, the first paragraph of Lincoln's Gettysburg address (and tell me in what state it was given), type the whole Preamble to the Constitution, and The first paragraph of the Declaration of Indepence. If you cannot do it without cheating, please so state, in reply! My next challenge would be for you to tell me about George Washington Carver, and his impact on society, then name the 23rd President, and Vice President. Then tell me the 49th and 50th states added, without looking them up, in order!

Alright, here we go.

Gettysburg Address, given at the site of the Battle of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania: "Four score and seven years ago, our forefathers brought forth a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

Preamble to the Constitution: "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Declaration of Independence: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them to another and to assume the seperate and equal station to which the laws of nature and God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of Man requires that they should declare their causes of separation." -- I'm pretty sure I botched this one.

I can't tell you a thing about George Washington Carver, since my AP American History teacher had to skimp on the social history (I could only take the course in the second semester of that year, meaning we had less than the full term to prepare for the exam).

The 23rd President was Harrison (and I don't mean William Henry), though I don't know his VP. As for the states, Alaska was the 49th, Hawaii the 50th.

Again, from first-hand experience, I find that public education suffers most from a lack of willingness on the part of a good amount of students to learn--excessive apathy, the same reason many don't vote. Some of my teachers were terrible, but they were gone the next year, so that said something to me.
50 posted on 01/04/2004 6:48:25 PM PST by Terpfen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson