Posted on 01/29/2004 4:06:48 PM PST by billbears
WASHINGTON — President Bush's 2005 budget proposal estimates that his Medicare bill will cost one-third more than the $400 billion the White House promised, and predicts the largest deficit ever in dollar terms, congressional aides said Thursday.
Bush will send the budget for the 2005 fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1, 2004, to Congress on Monday, barely a week after wrapping up the 2004 budget fight.
The president now estimates that the just-enacted prescription-drug program and Medicare overhaul will cost about $540 billion, and that this year's budget deficit will be about $520 billion, congressional sources told The Associated Press.
That deficit figure would easily surpass the $375 billion shortfall of last year. The new estimates come as Bush braces for a difficult election-season fight with Congress over his spending, which has angered budget watchdogs, including some conservatives.
Six of this year's 10 domestic spending bills cost more than Bush proposed, according to House Appropriations Committee figures. The conservative Citizens Against Government Waste (search) estimates all 13 bills had more than 10,000 "earmarks" for congressmen's home-district projects.
"This administration has been unwilling to fight those battles," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the conservative Taxpayers for Common Sense (search).
As the Medicare measure, which Bush signed last month, was moving through Congress, the president, White House officials and congressional Republican leaders had assured doubting conservatives that the bill's costs would stay within the $400 billion estimate.
The new Medicare estimate comes from the Medicare actuaries, and is a figure the president is compelled to include in his budget estimates. However, in Bush's stump speeches around the country, he has stressed that the real costs of Medicare may drop as additional prescription drugs could prevent some more costly medical procedures.
Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office, Congress' nonpartisan fiscal analyst, estimated the bill's 10-year cost at $395 billion.
Some conservatives voted against the legislation anyway. Many are now angry that Bush has presided over excessive increases in spending and budget deficits.
"I'm not the least bit surprised," said Rep. John Shadegg (search), R-Ariz., who voted against the Medicare bill and said he had heard the cost estimate would rise. "Historically, our estimates of what these programs will cost have been so far off as to be meaningless."
An administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the estimate would rise to nearly $540 billion.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I'm waiting for an apology, but I don't expect one from you.
And, for the record, I agree that there need to be reforms for Immigration, Social Security, and other national issues, but not at the cost to the states' rights.
I abhor seeing the NPR, NEA, and Teachers' Union funded with Federal funds, but the rest of the people who are getting that handout won't vote against it.
And you?
What in the world does that mean? Current federal immigration policy, Social Security and other national issues are already coming at the "cost of states' rights". Reforms will only strengthen states' rights - not place them in peril.
Sorry, but a lot of people here HAVE contacted their Congressmen and Senators. Might as well email, write, or fax a brick wall. The establishment Republican hacks are ignoring us grassroots conservatives BIG TIME - again.
Federal spending and gov't programs are out of control and we want something done about it NOW - The GOP controls ALL three branches of gov't and they can't cut a piddly, measly program or department? They can't even DECREASE the funding at least? Totally inexcusable.
Want full-blown socialism? Stay home or vote for Peroutka for the Constitution Party then, and watch President Kerry jack up your taxes and relinquish U.S. sovereignity to the U.N.
Show me where Post 28 called for voters to stay at home or vote for Peroutka.
Nice diversion, but we're not falling for your attempts to turn this into a flamefest. Next time stick to a poster's actual comments instead of building strawmen.
Well, we've still ten months left in this first year, and with already a 30% rise in the estimate, we'll see two trillion over ten, easily. And if the "Bush for Illegaliens" plan sees the light of day, we can easily double that to four tril. Ah, but who's counting in Washington?
We have got to put a cap on government's spinning - oops - spending.
Not something we can afford. I really am glad that Republicans are in office, image how large the deficit would be if Dims were in control.
</sarcasm>
...and to think we just had "to take back the Senate" for this! I'm not sure we can survive four more years of this flavor of "conservatism"
There are currently two threads on this AP article. On both cases, the article is excerpted although they do not have to be excerpted. Let me tell you why.
If you read just the article title and the first few paragraphs, you come away with an impression that is different from the impression you get from reading the whole article.
The cost of this program, over the years, has been estimated in numerous ways and it is safe to say that no one knows for sure exactly what it will cost. As the article states, it is difficult to say how many individuals will join each plan. And nobody can accurately predict what Medicare costs reductions will be achieved by this or that preventive treatmeant.
It is only common sense to write you budget around the worst case scenario rather than the best case scenario.
At least before we blocked the socialist programs, now we're told to shut up and vote "R" - all they are forgetting is the 'Do it for the children' phrase. Deficits are tomorrows taxes.
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.