Posted on 02/24/2004 7:15:06 AM PST by Dr. Marten
President Bush will propose an increase of less than 1 percent for federal programs not related to defense or homeland security, effectively freezing discretionary spending in the next budget, after coming under fire from conservatives to control runaway spending.
But the president will propose increasing governmentwide homeland security funding by 9.7 percent in the fiscal 2005 budget, and the military budget is expected to increase by a small amount.
"This is going to be an austere budget," White House spokesman Trent Duffy said of the budget that Mr. Bush will send to Congress on Feb. 2. The less-than-1 percent growth will be the smallest since Mr. Bush took office in 2001 — and the lowest since his father, President Bush, proposed his fiscal 1993 budget.
Bush to propose spending freeze 01/22/04
In addition:
To battle the soaring deficits, Bush proposed squeezing scores of government programs and sought outright spending cuts in seven of 15 Cabinet-level agencies. The Agriculture Department and the Environmental Protection Agency were targeted for the biggest reductions. In total, Bolten said, Bush’s budget would eliminate 65 government programs for a saving of $4.9 billion while proposing to cut spending in 63 other programs.
And the Dems are playing the race card (what's new):
This week, while Republican leaders sent a memo to Republican House members on how to attract Hispanic voters, the President sent Congress a budget proposal that would cut vital programs for the same Hispanic families that President Bush is asking to vote for him. Budget analyses show that over 100 programs, including education, work training and housing programs, will be killed or cut by Bush's proposal. The Department of Labor would lose $436 million under the Bush budget, and training programs for migrant and seasonal farm workers, who are predominantly Hispanic, would be terminated.
Or outright defying Bush:
Bush proposed that [Advanced Technology Program] ATP funding be curtailed to minimal levels necessary to finish existing projects and that [Manufacturing Extension Partnership] MEP receive $12 million to fund two remaining centers for seven years, after which time they would be on their own. In the past two budget cycles, Bush has requested that those two programs, as well as the Technology Opportunities Program (TOP), be eliminated, but Congress has supplied funding anyway.
It is NOT politics, he is just reacting to the crisis at hand. He stated earlier that he would support this, the judges and the gay activists have now forced his hand with their recent actions.
You posted the following remark in #597:
And the ones who replied to me about the "pandering" remark didn't seem to think I was coming out against CMA.
Your contention was incorrect - at a minimum I thought your remarks were coming out against CMA. If you make an assertion that's inaccurate, I'm afraid I have little choice but to reply in order to correct the record. I'm not about to "skip over" your post when I see a blatantly false statement in it.
Yes- I have been thinking about the "Full Faith and Credit" clause. I still don't like the idea. I would rather have the mass court decision overturned. Otherwise we will have to amend the constitution every other week as activist state supreme courts create strange new rights for stange new "minorities" that the other states would then have to recognize.
|
I agree with you on impeachment. It should have been used a long time ago. The Impeachment power against Judges was clearly meant as a legislative check against Judicial power by our founders. It should have been used often on both a state and federal level. But somehow the notion of impeaching a Judge is considered "Radical" or "extreme" by our government and media culture.
That is because you are looking for something to jump my ass about; for some reason, you've taken it upon yourself to correct every single thing I say, like some kind of school marm.
I never said ONE WORD about CMA -- not one -- and even you haven't been able to post where I said anything about it -- only what you "think" or "assume."
Your interpretation is a blatant lie.
Actually, my interpretation is just that - not a blatant lie. In the future, perhaps you should write more clearly if you wish to avoid further misunderstandings. But it's hardly appropriate to claim I'm lying when your statements were murky (at best) from the start.
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.