Bush's Budget for 2005 Seeks to Rein In Domestic Costs

NY Times ^ | January.4,2004 | ROBERT PEAR

[Support Free Republic]

Donate Here By Secure Server

[KantianBurke]

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.

[Sir Gawain]

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

[byteback]

[MegaSilver]

Abolish federal aid to the public schools. The teachers' union will never support a conservative administration, even a "compassionate" one.

[Atlas Sneezed]

How much of a surplus would we have if he eliminated all unconstitutional spending?

[At _War_With_Liberals]

He must really think that voters are stoopid.

[Reagan Man]

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.

[HostileTerritory]

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.

[AmericanVictory]

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."

[RJCogburn]

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.

[Principled]

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".

[pageonetoo]

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'!

[jagrmeister]

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.

[VRWC For Truth]

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.

[Biblebelter]

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.

[VRWC For Truth]

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. ;)

[billbears]

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