Bush Seeks to Soothe Republican Worries on Budget

Reuters ^ | Sat January 31, 2004 | Caren Bohan

[demlosers]

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - President Bush vowed on Saturday to hold the line on spending as he sought to reassure members of his own party who are upset at record budget deficits.

The president told a gathering of congressional Republicans that the task of restraining spending would be a tough one in an election year when politicians are loath to cut popular programs.

"This is going to be a challenging year for making sure we spend the people's money wisely," he said.

But Bush said he wanted to send a "clear signal" to the public and to financial markets that the administration was committed to belt-tightening.

The strategy session of Republicans came just two days before Bush was set to unveil his fiscal 2005 budget. It is expected to project a record $521 billion deficit.

The budget will call for holding spending growth outside of defense and homeland security to 0.5 percent.

But some conservative Republicans worry that safeguarding security-related expenditures from the budget cap will give the White House wide latitude to propose new spending since security issues might be defined broadly within the budget.

New costs such as a White House proposal for manned expeditions to the moon and Mars have set fiscal conservatives on edge.

Further stoking concerns was an acknowledgment this week by the White House that Bush's Medicare prescription drug program would cost tens of billions more than expected.

Bush's budget will show a $530 billion cost over 10 years for the addition of a prescription drug benefit for the Medicare health program for senior citizens. That is 33 percent more than was anticipated when the Medicare overhaul was approved less than two months ago.

Bush seemed to win some goodwill with the members of his party by lingering for an hour in a private session to take questions -- longer than he has in previous years. The president was asked about both Medicare and the budget deficits.

On Medicare, Bush replied he had no regrets about pushing for the prescription drug benefit despite its price tag and said he still thought he could accomplish his goal of cutting the budget deficit in half in five years, according to a U.S. official who was there.

Another participant said that on that matter of the budget deficit, "there's a sense that we need to act."

"Some of the frustration (over the deficit) is directed at the president and some it is directed at ourselves," said the participant, who is a Republican congressional aide.

Despite griping that has been going on behind the scenes about budgetary issues, Republicans girded for the election battle with solidarity chants of "Four more years" after Bush finished his speech.

Bush has come under repeated attacks over the deficit from Democrats trying to unseat him. They blame his tax cuts for the red ink. The president faces a re-election vote in November.

Democrats said on Saturday that Bush, in his efforts to rein in deficits, was targeting programs that help the most vulnerable U.S. citizens.

"Tax cuts that pile on to the largest deficit in our history will not help those folks find jobs," Rep. Brad Miller of North Carolina said in the Democratic response to the president's Saturday radio address. "Deficits drag the economy down, increase interest rates, and leave a staggering debt for our children to pay."

Bush in his own radio address earlier urged Congress to bring back now-expired rules that forbid increases in spending unless they are paid for elsewhere within the budget.

[Orangedog]

Oh, come on, share with the group. Or are you counting on today's tech stocks to fund your retirement?

[annyokie]

are you counting on today's tech stocks to fund your retirement? Of course.

[Orangedog]

Great! Hope you make a bundle.

[lainde]

Agreed!!!

[annyokie]

Oh, I will. Thank you for your concern and see you in the clubhouse.

[Krodg]

What other President has had to refund National Defense and deal with Homeland Security?

What many whiney butts here don't take in to account, is that this president actually kept his campaign promises. Even after the devastation of 9/11 he moved to complete the promises he made to his voters. Now that he has delivered on these things, he wants to work on the deficit....and he's hated again.!

I think perhaps some of the people at FR who claim to have voted for Bush before but 'never again'..never actually voted for him. These people are like me... I voted 'Bush' to vote against Clinton/Gore.

Others are true rebels. They have never voted for a party candidate, instead they 'voice' their opinion by not having any voice at all. They seem to always throw the country in the opposite direction they want it to go. IMO they are no better than hippies, gays, and anti-war liberals. All protest... no action.

When I voted Bush the last time I was voting against Clinton/Gore. When I vote Bush this time I will be voting for my President.

[Owen]

You know, government spending is an odd creature economically. We can all look at numbers as a % of GDP and growth rates and efforts to restrict growth rates, but the truth of the matter is the vast majority of government spending is salaries.

Yep, salaries.

For either government workers or some private sector entity who received a contract.

Salaries are subject to tax. That part which is not taxed and kept gets spent at McDonalds or something and pays for . . . you guessed it, meat, made by ranchers and meat processors. Those places pay more salaries. And those salaries are taxed, too.

Weird thing, government spending. A big chunk of it comes back to the treasury. I don't know what all this means, but it probably means something. If I had to guess, I'd guess it means this is much ado about nothing.

[annyokie]

[Reagan Man]

The argument over PresBush`s excessive spending centers mainly around the non-defense/non-HSD discretionary spending portion of his first four budgets, 2002 to 2005

From the Office of Management and Budget: Budget Outlays for Reagan (81-85), Clinton (93-97), Bush43 (01-05). Reagan had the largest increases in total discretionary spending and for good reason. Reagan had to rebuild the military and that was expensive. But in non-defense/non-HSD portion of discretionary spending, PresBush is the winner. Btw, notice the huge drop in defense spending under der schlickmeister.

Discretionary Spending
81-85: +35.1%
93-97: +14.8%
01-05: +30.9%

Defense Spending
81-85: +73.9%
93-97: -7.1%
01-05: +33.9%

Non-Defense/Non-HSD Discretionary Spending
81-85: +8.7%
93-97: +11.7%
01-05: +20.1%

[Time4Atlas2Shrug]

I can only speak for myself, but I think that many here are not disgusted with functions of government such as salaries (to necessary govt. positions), national defense/security, etc. Agencies such as the FDA, the FAA, the border patrol and the FTC perform important and legitimate governmental services that are useful.

The problem I have with government spending is that eventually there is always a demand for higher taxes to repay the borrowed money. Unfortunately, almost half of our nation pays no taxes and that leaves the rest of us (on an escalating basis) to pay for those who pay nothing but receive the greatest benefit from the bloated government spending.

The bulk of the social programs benefit the lower income brackets and if the spending were slashed in these areas, low and behold, we would find the lower income brackets diminshing and the tax base broadening - after all many undisciplined and unscrupulous people need an incentive to work and contribute.

Many of us are disgusted as well with the rapidly increasing education budget, but the schools continue to decline in quality. After all, who will put them out of business if they can keep crying that if only they had more money, they would be able to perform. As a result of this phenomenon, the standards are now federal for them to receive money and the expectations are pathetically low.

Our money is wasted - imagine if we ran our homes this way!!!

[Krodg]

Thanks for the pic. If you don't have a copy of the email about our 'Cowyboy President' let me know.

Have you read "The Faith of George W. Bush"? Good insight on what makes this man a great president. He is just a man!

[Libertina]

BUMP for MORE NOISE

[Sabertooth]

The only thing that surprises me is how quickly the emperor was exposed as having no clothes. Now the issue is why was there such a large error? Why was responsible? Who cooked the books? The period of time is too short to just blame it on the outcomes not matching the perdictions. Normally there are enough outcomes to provide cover for the perps to just say they are shocked and amazed. Not this time.

The WMD "scandal" doesn't interest me, although it certainly interests the media. This one does.

Then get a load of this...

Bush's budget will show a $530 billion cost over 10 years for the addition of a prescription drug benefit for the Medicare health program for senior citizens. That is 33 percent more than was anticipated when the Medicare overhaul was approved less than two months ago.
Bush Seeks to Soothe Republican Worries on Budget
Reuters - Sat January 31st, 2004 - Caren Bohan

But that $400 billion is up from $300 billion over ten years from two years ago.

WASHINGTON (Reuters Health) - Congress will seek to set aside approximately $300 billion over the next 10 years to fund a Medicare prescription drug benefit, congressional aides said Friday.

Aides to House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert (R-IL) said that he would seek to attain the $300 billion figure, an amount roughly equal to the money approved for the benefit as part of last year's budget resolution. Early negotiations last year failed to produce an agreement on prescription drugs or on overall Medicare reform.

The $300 billion is likely to exceed President Bush's budget request for prescription drugs by approximately $100 billion, said Hastert spokesman John Feehery.
Congress to Seek $300 Billion for Medicare Benefit
Reuters - January 28th, 2002 - Todd Zwillich

$530 billion is almost a 77% increase from $300 billion, and we haven't spent a dime yet.

But it gets better...

Another Republican acknowledged today that the $153 billion President Bush set aside in his budget for a Medicare prescription drug benefit would not be enough.

"Every body knows that figure is gone,"Energy and Commerce Chairman Tauzin told reporters at a briefing. number, he said, was set before CBO re-estimated last year‚'s House bill, which he said is "already over $200 billion and climbing."
CongressDaily
Medicare and Prescription Drugs - Billions of Dollars, 2002 - 2011
March 22, 2001

So, since early 2001, President Bush's Prescription Drug entitlement has gone from a projected $153 billion to $530 billion in the first ten years. That's a over a 340% increase from the initial estimates.

Of course, all of those numbers are projections for the time period prior to the retirement of the Baby Boomers.

Then it gets worse.

[RagingBull]

As I understand it, the CBO or someone has actual numbers for 98 and 99 which showed surpluses. We had surpluses up until 01.

there was a "surplus", but it was only because surplus SS taxes are loaned back and used for general funds. If they were stored in Al Gore's mythical lockbox, SS would show a surplus (as it always has in the past, and probably won't in the future) but general funds would show a deficit.

[Uncle Miltie]

"On Medicare, Bush replied he had no regrets about pushing for the prescription drug benefit despite its price tag"

I'm not sorry I had that last beer, officer.

[OPS4]

With no more than a handshake, Mayor Daley's administration spends nearly $40 million a year hiring hundreds of trucks -- primarily dump trucks -- that often do little or no work, a Sun-Times investigation has found.

The city has a list of about 165 favorite truck companies to send to city work sites. Some owners have political clout, some are mob figures or their relatives.

SUN-TIMES While the Sun-Times watched this hired truck in West Humboldt Park, it went to McDonald's and Jewel, and eventually hauled a small load.

Many do nothing but work for the city's Hired Truck Program, and often their operations are run out of the owners' homes. Six of every 10 aren't listed in the phone book. But many are listed on campaign reports showing they contribute money to the mayor and other politicians -- in all more than $800,000 since 1996.

Read the full story, and let me know if the dems can do better. Corruption is the rule for the dem machine in chicago, how much money has flown the coop between Gray Davis in California and Daley in chicago. Balanced budgets, the dems are the last place I would be Looking.
Ops4 God BLess America!

[alnick]

Kerry Pledges Return to Clinton Terrorism Policies

[ChiMark]

Bush just proposed a new HUD initiative. The Bush family is self destructive. He is not conservative. He will lose.

[dirtboy]

Dang. Usually it takes a couple of years, instead of just a couple of months, for the true cost of a new entitlement to start revealing itself. What a stinker.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

That's essential what she said.