Posted on 01/26/2005 8:31:55 AM PST by atlaw
WASHINGTON - Additional war spending this year will push the federal deficit to a record $427 billion for fiscal 2005, effectively thwarting President Bush's pledge to begin slowing the flow of government red ink, according to new budget forecasts unveiled Tuesday.
Administration officials rolled out an $80 billion emergency spending request, mainly for Iraq and Afghanistan, conceding the extra funds likely would send the deficit above the record $412 billion in fiscal 2004, which ended Sept. 30.
Bush has pledged to cut the budget deficit in half by 2009, a promise the administration insists it can keep. But at least for now, the government's fiscal health is getting worse.
"We must get serious about putting our financial house in order, beginning with short-term deficit reduction and then long-term control of entitlement spending," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "If we do nothing, our kids and grandkids will be overwhelmed by the cost of our inaction."
In separate briefings, administration officials detailed the rising cost of war while the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its deficit forecast for the coming decade. Taken together, the briefings painted a sobering picture of the government's financial strength, even in the face of a growing economy and rising tax receipts. The figures suggest the Bush administration will continue to have difficulty reining in federal deficits as long as war is draining the coffers.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Fact 1: War costs big money.
Get over it, lib-dem trash.
Wondering when we'll see our small-government Republicans cut spending on non-essential (if not unconstitutional) programs.
In peacetime, it's "guns and butter"; in wartime, it's "guns, THEN butter". It is never "butter, then guns", for without the guns, you either won't have the butter, because someone else already owns you (and doles you out a bit of bread w/ nothing on it), or someone will take your butter away from you.
It is not that complicated. Business before pleasure. And if you don't take care of business, there won't be any pleasure.
Also, keep in mind this is the Houston Urinal.
The same "reporters" who labled on their server the cute girl with the "W" pigtails as "brainwashed girl" or somesuch.
Not a credible news source.
"...effectively thwarting President Bush's pledge to begin slowing the flow of government red ink".
That is an editorial comment.
I believe Bush pledged to reduce the amount of unnecessary spending. Since when did war funding become unnecessary?
I'm so sick of reading MSM crap.
"Get over it, lib-dem trash."
I trust you are referring to the reporter (or the paper).
"Wondering when we'll see our small-government Republicans cut spending on non-essential (if not unconstitutional) programs."
Me too. Seems to be a prevailing attitude that if its Republican pork, its good pork. Deficits be darned.
I rather doubt that the WP would use such apocalyptic words to describe the fiscal consequences of spending on domestic programs to be enjoyed by Democrat constituents.
Pork is relative. That's the way it's always been, and gonna be...
if it's your (ie conservative) pork, it's good pork, if it's their (ie liberal) pork, it's bad.
Never, nor will they tell us the cost of the Socialized medicine they support.
Nor will they repeat the cost that a single 20 min on 9/11 cost the US. (600,00 billion), estimates I have read.
Nor have they examined the remarkable come back we have made.
I do not support Republicans over spending on domestic issues, no one on the right does, we shall see how they handle this.
Hemorrhage the enemy.
No, they are hemorrhaging from ongoing socialist "entitlements" to spoilt adults who never left childhood.
According to our Founding Fathers, butter was never meant to be part of the equation in the first place. Only guns.
Any links on that "600,00 billion" (sic) [600,000 billion?] figure for the cost of 9/11?
60 [or 600] trillion dollars would seem to be a rather high figure.
I don't think I meant that the gov't had to put up the butter for us, but that the gov't had to provide the right climate so that we, the people, can get our own butter, unimpeded. To me, that is the definition of the butter in the "guns and butter" paradigm. To others, I am sure, it means the Uncle Sugar model.
Bottom line is: without the guns, the butter is very iffy -- so guns is the greater priority.
Hmmm... we're "hemhorraging money" spending another $80 billion for the war on terror, but not a peep about the
$10,000 billion + wasted on welfare since 1964... more than coincidence, liberal piss-ant reporters...?
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.