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

Skip to comments.

Bush Budget To Predict FY '04 Deficit Over $500B (Is Big Spender Bush trying to lose the election?)
Quicken.com ^ | January 30, 2004 | Unknown

Posted on 01/30/2004 8:17:30 PM PST by TheEaglehasLanded

Bush Budget To Predict FY '04 Deficit Over $500B Thursday, January 29, 2004 04:01 PM ET Printer-friendly version

WASHINGTON [AP]--U.S. President George W. 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.

Bush's new budget will estimate this year's budget deficit at about $520 billion, the congressional sources said. That would easily surpass the $375 billion shortfall of last year, the highest deficit ever in dollar terms.

Just Monday, the Congressional Budget Office projected this year's red ink would total $477 billion.

The new estimate comes as Bush braces for a difficult election-season fight with Congress over spending - after a budget year that he can hardly expect to top.

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.

Bush just signed the Medicare measure into law last month. While it was moving through Congress, Bush, White House officials and congressional Republican leaders had assured doubting conservatives that the bill's costs would stay within the $400 billion estimate.

Some conservatives voted against the legislation anyway, and many of them are already angry that Bush has presided over excessive increases in spending and budget deficits.

"I'm not the least bit surprised," said conservative Rep. John Shadegg, R- Ariz., who voted against the Medicare bill in November and who said he had heard that the cost estimate would rise. "Historically, our estimates of what these programs will cost have been so far off as to be meaningless."

White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton wouldn't comment on the Medicare figures. But an administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the estimate would rise to nearly $540 billion.

"Both numbers provide what you can call a reasonable range of possible future costs for Medicare," the official said. "These are complex estimates, based on hundreds of individual programs, decisions and potential actions over an extended period of time."

CBO, Congress' nonpartisan fiscal analyst, estimated the bill's 10-year cost at $395 billion. But administration officials repeatedly stood by the $400 billion figure, which Bush had included in the budget he proposed last February.

Although Bush sends his 2005 budget to Congress next week, lawmakers only last week completed their spending work for 2004. That process saw Bush win virtually all his major priorities including a tax cut, new Medicare prescription drug coverage, funds to fight a war with Iraq, and overall spending restraint.

"He wanted a carpet that looked like X, and generally speaking he got a carpet that looked like X," said Richard Kogan, who analyzes the budget for the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The Republican-run Congress avoided overt clashes with Bush but didn't roll over completely.

Lawmakers trimmed his defense plans while boosting funds for highways, Amtrak and veterans. They ignored Bush's plan to make tax cuts permanent, scaled back his proposal to stop taxing corporate dividends, derailed his energy bill and added thousands of home-district projects to spending measures.

Even so, the results were a far cry from the "dead on arrival" label applied to the spending blueprints of some of Bush's recent predecessors. Democrats and moderate Republicans often gave that assessment to plans written by the first President Bush and President Ronald Reagan, who were forced to accept both tax and spending increases.

On the other hand, despite the GOP takeover of Congress two years into his tenure, President Bill Clinton won frequent spending concessions from lawmakers wary of battling him. Bush has followed a similar pattern.

"It would be hard to say he's not getting what he wants," Stan Collender, a senior vice president who follows the budget for the accounting firm Fleischman- Hillard.

Bush has yet to cast a veto after three years in office. He often uses the threat of a veto to get his way, issuing 19 as Congress considered the 13 annual spending bills for this year. In the end, lawmakers dropped challenges on issues like administration plans to change overtime pay rules and divert more government work to private contractors.

Major priorities Bush proposed last year included:

- Tax reductions of $1.3 trillion over 10 years. The bill he signed had $330 billion in tax cuts. That number is expected to grow should lawmakers, as anticipated, make some of its temporary reductions permanent. Congress added $20 billion he didn't seek for financially strapped states.

- $400 billion over a decade for revamping Medicare and adding prescription drug coverage. Bush last month signed a bill resembling his proposal.

- $87 billion this year for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, $500 million less than he got. The final bill gave him $1.7 billion less than the $18.6 billion he wanted to rebuild Iraq and less flexibility than he wanted for controlling the money.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 520billiondeficit; bigspender; bush; fy2005
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last
To: EternalVigilance
'Night EV!
81 posted on 01/31/2004 2:18:32 AM PST by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet (Four hours is too long for a Democrat to sit in the Oval Office, let alone four years. Vote W '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
Not to worry, this is just a gentleman's bet between Ted Kennedy & George W. Bush about who could stupidly spend the most taxpayer money in the shortest period of time. So far, Bush is winning, big time.
82 posted on 01/31/2004 3:02:10 AM PST by searchandrecovery (America - The NEW Third World!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx; Capitalism2003
Ha ha. Like you're the base


Maye he\she\it meant to say
"I am debased"
83 posted on 01/31/2004 3:19:32 AM PST by WKB (3!~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; onyx
You and a small group of other FReepers are well-known here for your distaste for conservatives who unwaveringly pursue the advancement of conservatism without fear or favor.


SMALL group? What do you call the the MS River , a creek?
No doubt you went to public school no better with "figgers "than you are.
84 posted on 01/31/2004 3:25:34 AM PST by WKB (3!~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: onyx
And Barry Goldwater was president from 19__ to 19__?

Without Goldwater, no Reagan.

85 posted on 01/31/2004 10:56:55 AM PST by Allan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Allan
Nobody adored Barry Goldwater more than me. The point is lost on the troll from LP.
86 posted on 01/31/2004 11:06:54 AM PST by onyx (Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: WKB; EternalVigilance
Thank you, WKB, but EV is not worth my time. I choose to ignore him. He's a Keyster. Need I say more?
87 posted on 01/31/2004 11:08:34 AM PST by onyx (Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Thanks for ignoring me. I truly appreciate it.
88 posted on 01/31/2004 11:23:11 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
IMHO, your best bet is to continue to post factually-based, respectful comments as I've often seen you do. Sure there are some folks on FR who are not respectful, but the contrasting styles will reflect well on you and your cause.
89 posted on 01/31/2004 11:28:52 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
"I don't even know what botox is".... John F'n Kerry
90 posted on 01/31/2004 11:30:48 AM PST by petercooper (We did not have to prove Saddam had WMD, he had to prove he didn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Point well taken. Thanks.
91 posted on 01/31/2004 11:30:49 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion; habs4ever

92 posted on 01/31/2004 11:33:43 AM PST by onyx (Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: onyx
?

I'm not sure what to take from that picture. Is it supposed to represent you sneering at me?

I'm genuinely confused...

93 posted on 01/31/2004 11:46:18 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: onyx
HAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa

TOOOO

TOOOOO

FUNNNNY!!!!!!!!!!
94 posted on 01/31/2004 11:48:31 AM PST by Neets (Complainers change their complaints, but they never reduce the amount of time spent in complaining.~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I'll tell you this much, this deficit issue is going to provide the Dems with plenty of material. Someone mentioned to me that James Carville was on TV claiming that Bush just throws money at problems to try and solve them. If the Dems can convince voters that there's no difference between them and the GOP regarding the size of government, and Kerry can convince voters that he can get the job done on foreign policy, Bush could have a fight on his hands.

I certainly want to see Bush win again, but in my view he's making it difficult on himself as of late.

95 posted on 01/31/2004 12:00:11 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Is that girl from Little House on the Prairir? I had to search the name - sorry, that's before my time. Although I still don't quite get the significance...very strange.
96 posted on 01/31/2004 12:08:54 PM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: onyx

"Nellie Olsen, patron saint of the FR Fussers"


97 posted on 01/31/2004 12:11:12 PM PST by Hillary's Lovely Legs (Saddam feels so bad for Howard Dean that he has offered him his hole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
Yep, bratty Nellie, the sniveling apple-polishing tattle tale.
98 posted on 01/31/2004 12:15:22 PM PST by onyx (Your secrets are safe with me and all my friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs; onyx
LoL. Ya'll have done it now! A new FR icon is born - Nellie Oleson.

Perfect.
99 posted on 01/31/2004 12:18:09 PM PST by EllaMinnow (If you want to send a message, call Western Union.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
I was warning that Republican leadership was providing these openings a long time ago, but no one listened.

Oh well.
100 posted on 01/31/2004 7:04:02 PM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 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