Analysts: (President) Bush's plan does little to reduce deficit

Mercury News ^ | 2/2/2004 | William Douglas - Knight Ridder

[NormsRevenge]

WASHINGTON - President Bush's new budget proposes another deficit next year, but he said cutting this year's record deficit of $521 billion in half in five years is a top priority.

All he needs to do now is come up with a realistic plan to do it.

[NormsRevenge]

Posesta has a lot of nerve talking about the administration having credibility problems and coming forth with the truth in a timely fashion.

For 8 years , the Clintonoids made there own little sweetheart deals, sold military and trade secrets, abrogated their duty to defend this nation against foreign enemies whilst acting as domestic enemies in their own right.

I'm gonna take a break but have it.

[Huck]

"No one should expect significant deficit reduction as a result of austere nondefense discretionary spending limits," said Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, which manages the federal purse strings. "The numbers simply do not add up."

Any one know this Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla? What's his deal?

[Huck]

That Gene Sperling is a puke, too.

[NormsRevenge]

Podesta, oops.

[NormsRevenge]

I hear ya..

It should read ... said Gene Sperling, FORMER President Clinton's economic adviser.. shouldn't it?

No bias here, no sirree..

[waterstraat]

bush spends our tax dollars like any other drunken liberal democrat sailor.

[DameAutour]

To meet his five-year goals, the White House said it intends to slice and dice: Eliminate 65 major programs and cut spending in 63 others to save $4.9 billion in 2005 alone and much more over time. However, analysts and Democrats say the plan is flawed because Congress isn't likely to approve of killing and cutting popular programs in an election year....

"As we go through the weeds here, we're likely to find things that won't be cut because Congress won't let them happen," he said. "This budget is a fig leaf that attempts to cover up the magnitude of the fiscal problem we're in."

Hmm okay. See my tagline.

[NormsRevenge]

Your tagline is most correct. While he can wield the veto (but hasn't since taking office, so far), it is the Congre$$ that doles out the pork.

[DameAutour]

My problem is I see conservatives who are very angry at Bush but doing nothing about Congress. Rather than take out Bush, why not put more effort into putting more conservatives in Congress? This is how the socialists have implemented their agenda over the last 7 decades.

There are several big races this year. There will be big ones in 2006. Where are all of the conservative candidates? All I hear about is Pat Toomey vs Arlen Specter. Grassroots efforts worked so well in ousting Grey Davis, where is the strong effort to oust the likes of Barbara Boxer? And replace CINOs with real conservatives via the primaries?

Instead of working to make Tom Tancredo president, where is the effort to put more Tom Tancredos in the House? More Santorums in the Senate?

[NormsRevenge]

Where are all the conservatives?

Hint - Don't look in California.. there ain't too many left here, it would seem, as recent history shows.

[DameAutour]

"Where are all the conservatives?"

Well shoot just going by some of the more vocal anti-Bush posters on this website, you'd think most of America was conservative and they'd all support more conservative policies, if Bush would enact them. You'd get the idea that the conservative "base" is this huge constituency that Bush is ignoring. And if only Bush was out of the White House, even if he was replaced by a Democrat, things would be better because NOW the Republicans would start listening to all of these conservatives.

[DameAutour]

And what do you mean there ain't too many conservatives left in California?

Much was heard from them during the recall election. They were here in force opposing "Schwarzenkennedy" the "RINO" as they call him. I always believed that the current governor of California is a Republican, but not a conservative. Instead of attacking the likes of him in a non-primary battle, why don't the McClintocks and the Simons and their supporters try to do some damage to the likes of Boxer?

Do you mean to say there really aren't so many after all? And maybe the barely conservative Republicans are winning because the "people" aren't supporting much else? If 75% of Congress is socialist or CINO, maybe this is because 75% of the country is the same way?

There are some that should be targetted before Bush.

[NormsRevenge]

Yet only 13% pulled the lever for McClintock, (saying he wasn't electable), and get branded as "purist" etc. The Simons have moved with the latest flow to the center to stay involved and not be "shutout". Not much consolation, imo.

"Moderate" conservatives (CINO, RINO offends yaknow) have taken the party banner and opted to move to the center in the belief that they will then be better able to get more of their kind elected and in so doing re-establish their form of conservatism as the norm, in due time.

All that has done is further fracture the GOP and make it that much more difficult to battle the Rats.

The redistricting methodology has allowed the 2 parties to keep safe districts for each party and maintain their fiefdoms but , in turn, this has shut out any meaningful return to fiscal sanity.

The Recall has probably done little more than forestall major financial failure here, imo.

All some of us here can do is keep educating and banging the drums and attempt to keep the moderates in line, including the Gov, and eventually hope that he new Californians see the current system as untenable for all. That, of course, means major change in general in how the state and its institutions, taxation code, etc operate. No short order, at that.

[DameAutour]

But McClintock wasn't electable, not in that election. Schwarzeneggar (who is neither a RINO nor a CINO imo, but is an unabashed moderate Republican) was the best the Republicans could do. Don't yet know if it did any good as far as turning California around.

However, the conservatives should have taken the momentum garnered by McClintock's strong showing. Instead, everyone's giving in to the moderates? Why aren't they trying to move the party to the right the way the socialists moved their party to the left? They've given up. I don't understand it. It wasn't so long ago that a true conservative held the reins in California (Deukmejian?). It wasn't so long ago that an unabashedly conservative group of Republicans took over Congress (1994).

So why have has the "conservative base" given up? Change the party from within! Instead, people who identify themselves as conservatives throw temper tantrums.

[NormsRevenge]

The GOP party base is split.. has been for quite awhile. Not even Arnold has been able to gather the troops. I have my own doubts of how Republican he truly is, moderate or not. That only further complicates the mess as he makes appointments that are more lefties than anything.

Why have the conservatives given up?
They haven't , they are just retooling. ;-}

The March primary will be a chance to test their legs out.

btw, I'm a registered independent who has long since de-registered as a R. I prefer to work from withoutrather than within. I don't play games well, am used to losing but it's not my gameboard anyway.

You are right Deukmejian kept things going for awhile , then Wilson shot the moon and sold the farm and you know the rest of the story.

[DameAutour]

I don't think Schwarzeneggar can even count on the conservatives for any help. They don't like him, they took their ball and they went home. He's a populist, he'll do just about anything if people like him.

But what a major victory it would be if the Republicans could capture, not just the governorship, but a Senate seat (or two!). And why not, a CONSERVATIVE Republican? But perhaps that is asking too much, considering just how far to the left California has gone. That's if you look at the ridiculously leftist state legislature. So who knows. I sure don't know, I'm not in California.

On the one hand, the state seems very liberal and just getting any kind of Republican state-wide victory seems like a big deal. On the other hand, California conservatives argued (and the popularity of prop 187 supports) that Californians are ready to vote conservative. I think they should prove it and oust Boxer.

I think conservatives across the nation need to re-focus on Congress instead of just tearing down Bush (or Schwarzeneggar). This is if they want to win. There is a Republican majority in Congress. That means leadership and committees, which are important. NOW, how about some more conservatives in Congress?

[gatorbait]

That Gene Sperling is a puke, too.

I'll look and see if I can find the Sperling articles in the American Spectator. They guy even looks like a weasel;appearance fitting the action.

[NormsRevenge]

Tho it looks bleak in California right now,I have faith that the Rats will be tossed, if not in 2004, then in '06, I suspect Arnold will move on after the 2006 election.

He has appeal but his selections and actions so far don't ring true to many who had hoped he would really do battle and not seek to be "buddies" with. He talks tough but.. so far, no cigar. Some of his recent decisions re: prisons and committees are suspect to say the least.

The real battle that must be fought is tossing the dems to the curb, here and in the nation's Capitol, primarily the Senate. Getting one seat would be nice, but the state GOP leadership will probably mess the boxer rebellion up in their own inimitable style.

It been nice chatting, got to moveon for now. Have a good one.

[NormsRevenge]

Thanks, if he served under clinton, that says it all. ;-}