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

Skip to comments.

Bush sends Congress $2.57 trillion budget
AP ^ | 2/7/5 | MARTIN CRUTSINGER

Posted on 02/07/2005 7:56:15 AM PST by SmithL

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush sent Congress a $2.57 trillion budget plan Monday that seeks deep spending cuts across a wide swath of government from reducing subsidies paid to the nation's farmers, cutting health care payments for poor people and veterans and trimming spending on the environment and education.

The budget - the most austere of Bush's presidency - would eliminate or vastly scale back 150 government programs. It will spark months of contentious debate in Congress, where lawmakers will fight to protect their favored programs.

The spending document projects that the deficit will hit a record $427 billion this year, the third straight year that the red ink in dollar terms has set a record. Bush projects that the deficit will fall to $390 billion in 2006 and gradually decline to $233 billion in 2009 and $207 billion in 2010.

Bush's 2006 spending plan, for the budget year that begins next Oct. 1, counts on a healthy economy to boost revenues by 6.1 percent to $2.18 trillion. Spending, meanwhile, would grow by 3.5 percent to $2.57 trillion.

However, outside defense, homeland security and the government's huge mandatory programs such as Social Security, Bush proposes cutting spending for the rest of government by 0.5 percent, the first such proposed cut since the Reagan administration battled with its own soaring deficits.

Of 23 major government agencies, 12 would see their budget authority reduced next year, including cuts of 9.6 percent at Agriculture and 5.6 percent at the Environmental Protection Agency.

In his budget message to Congress, Bush said, "In order to sustain our economic expansion, we must continue pro-growth policies and enforce even greater spending restraint across the federal government."

But Democrats complained that Bush was resorting to draconian cuts that would hurt the needy in order to protect his first term tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthy.

"This budget is part of the Republican plan to cut Social Security benefits while handing out lavish tax breaks for multimillionaires," said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Its cuts in veterans programs, health care and education reflect the wrong priorities and its huge deficits are fiscally irresponsible."

Bush's budget does not reflect the costs for his No. 1 domestic priority, overhauling Social Security by allowing younger workers to set up private investment accounts. It also does not include any new spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, The administration has said it will seek in coming weeks an additional $80 billion for the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for this year.

Critics also contend that the five-year deficit projections also mask the costs of some Bush initiatives such as making his first-term tax cuts permanent, the bulk of which do not show up until after 2010. The budget puts the 10-year cost of making the president's tax cut proposals permanent at $1.29 trillion.

Bush's budget proposed increasing military spending by 4.8 percent to $419.3 billion in 2006. However, even with the increase a number of major weapons programs, including Bush's missile defense system and the B-2 stealth bomber, would see cuts from this year's levels.

Aside from defense and homeland security, favored Bush programs included a new $1.5 billion high school performance program, expanded Pell Grants for low-income college students and more support for community health clinics.

One of the most politically sensitive targets on Bush's hit list is the government support program for farmers, which he wants to trim by $5.7 billion over the next decade, which would represent cuts to farmers growing a wide range of cuts from cotton and rice to corn, soybeans and wheat.

Overall, the administration projected saving $8.2 billion in agriculture programs over the next decade including trimming food stamp payments to the poor by $1.1 billion.

Other programs set for cuts include the Army Corps of Engineers, whose dam and other waterway projects are extremely popular in Congress; the Energy Department; several health programs under the Health and Human Services Department and federal subsidies for the Amtrak passenger railroad.

About one-third of the programs being targeted for elimination are in the Education Department, including federal grant programs for local schools in such areas as vocational education, anti-drug efforts and Even Start, a $225 million literacy program.

In all, the president proposed savings of $137 billion over 10 years in mandatory programs with much of that occurring in reductions in Medicaid, the big federal-state program that provides health care for the poor, and in payments the Veterans Administration makes for health care. The administration proposed no savings for Medicare, the giant health care program for the elderly.

Many of the spending cuts in the budget are repeats of efforts the administration has proposed and Congress has rejected previously.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: budget; bush43; federalspending; term2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-209 next last
To: Reagan Man
"Finally, some fiscal responsibility from our President. Reducing the size and scope of government is one of the major tenets of conservatism. Good move."

Exactly, this is a move. Not all we want, but movement in the right direction.

Now we need to keep the Congress' collective feet to the fire prevent these cuts from being ...cut.
101 posted on 02/07/2005 3:58:34 PM PST by e5man_r_u? (A Man's mission: Build, Protect, Provide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

...agreed on every item in your list, Ivan!


102 posted on 02/07/2005 4:16:13 PM PST by familyop ("Let us try" sounds better, don't you think? "Essayons" is so...Latin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Thanks for selectively displaying. Look at the bottom of Table S3. One number sums it all up. Total discretionary spending is up 2.1%. It is always the case that some depts get cut over others, but overall there is an increase in discretionary spending.
103 posted on 02/07/2005 4:49:42 PM PST by econ_grad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: econ_grad

I noticed "state and international assistance programs" will increase from 4.3% to 15.7%. Is that term a euphemism for taxpayer-funded welfare?


104 posted on 02/07/2005 4:54:23 PM PST by k2blader (It is neither compassionate nor conservative to support the expansion of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Goddess; cdrw; Taxman; Principled; EternalVigilance; rwrcpa1; phil_will1; kevkrom; ...

. The FairTax Act makes the full cost of government visible to all...and that would put the brakes on spending faster than anything.

Certainly better than the current system where half the electorate perceives someone else paying the freight.

"It's like me in the restaurant: What do I care about extravagance if you're footing the bill?"
--Walter Williams

A Taxreform bump for you all.

If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.

John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25), offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a retail sales tax:

H.R.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

Refer for additional information:


105 posted on 02/07/2005 4:59:01 PM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: k2blader

Oh yeah, international assistance. I forgot these Constitutionally approved measures.


106 posted on 02/07/2005 4:59:25 PM PST by econ_grad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB
$2.57 trillion dollars and the press is going to complain that it is cruel and miserly.
107 posted on 02/07/2005 5:04:13 PM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: econ_grad
>>>>Thanks for selectively displaying.

I never said this was an across the board cut in spending. Now did I?

Stop being so hard headed. Proposing this level of reductions for certain departments/agencies/programs in discreationary spending hasn't been done since Reagan. That's a fact.

There is mandatory spending requirements that exist under current law, which the President has NO control over. The President can propose redcutions in discretionary spending and thats what he's done.

Remember. GWBush is POTUS. He is not KOTUS.

108 posted on 02/07/2005 5:04:23 PM PST by Reagan Man ("Don't let the bastards grind you down." General "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy


109 posted on 02/07/2005 5:05:25 PM PST by Rakkasan1 (john f'n kerry-the original 'million dollar baby'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

http://www.wavcentral.com/sounds/movies/jerk/jerk01


110 posted on 02/07/2005 5:05:30 PM PST by Rakkasan1 (john f'n kerry-the original 'million dollar baby'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: malakhi

http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/yosemite/Sam42.wav


111 posted on 02/07/2005 5:08:22 PM PST by Rakkasan1 (john f'n kerry-the original 'million dollar baby'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

How many of these are cuts that he previously increased in the prior 4 years?


112 posted on 02/07/2005 5:08:55 PM PST by smokeyb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: smokeyb

PresBush has been reducing discretionary spending as a percentage of the overall budget since the last Clinton budget in 2001. The Bush 2006 budget, actually proposes some serious cuts in non-military discreationary spending.


113 posted on 02/07/2005 5:20:27 PM PST by Reagan Man ("Don't let the bastards grind you down." General "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Look under the cumulative change in the last column. The reduction now pales in comparison to what he actually has increased since 2001.

The mandatory spending in each agency is small in some cases except for Labor and Treasury compared to the total budget. I got this from yahoo.

Agency: Department of Education (news - web sites)
Spending: $56 billion
Percentage change from 2005: -1 percent
Mandatory outlays: $7.4 billion
Total Spending: $63.4 billion

Agency: Department of Defense (news - web sites)
Spending: $419.3 billion
Percentage change from 2005: +4.5 percent
Mandatory Outlays: $1.9 billion
Total Spending: $421.2 billion

Agency: Department of Labor
Spending: $11.5 billion
Percentage Change from 2005: -4.4 percent
Mandatory Outlays: $40.5 billion
Total Spending: $52 billion

Agency: Department of the Treasury
Spending: $11.6 billion
Percentage Change from 2005: +3.9 percent
Mandatory Outlays: $41.3 billion
Total Spending: $52.9 billion

Agency: Department of Transportation
Spending: $57.5 billion
Percentage change from 2005: -1 percent
Mandatory outlays: $1.2 billion
Total spending: $58.7 billion


Interior and State have no mandatory outlays, all discretionary.


114 posted on 02/07/2005 5:29:36 PM PST by econ_grad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Eliminate the hundreds of millions for arab and muslim terrorists.


115 posted on 02/07/2005 5:32:59 PM PST by sarah_f ( Know Islam, Know Terror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econ_grad
Oh yeah, international assistance. I forgot these Constitutionally approved measures.

International assistance in the defense of this country is Constitutional. Don't forget.

116 posted on 02/07/2005 5:34:12 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: econ_grad
Total discretionary spending is up 2.1%. It is always the case that some depts get cut over others, but overall there is an increase in discretionary spending.

A discretionary spending increase of 2.1% is less than the rate of inflation plus the percentage increase in population.

That works to less on a dollar earned that you will pay for federal discretionary spending.

117 posted on 02/07/2005 5:39:21 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: pissant
EPA, D of Ed, Commerce, Civil rights, etc.. Get rid of those, and I'll be happy.

Me, too! And the National Endowment for the Arts (no more taxpayer-funded filth), and he needs to urge Congress to get rid of the ESA (Endangered Species Act) and get us the heck out of the useless UN.

118 posted on 02/07/2005 5:40:29 PM PST by alwaysconservative (JF'nK: How can we miss you if you won't go away?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

That is how liberals operate. Everything is inter-state commerce.


119 posted on 02/07/2005 5:41:28 PM PST by econ_grad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: alwaysconservative

now we're talkin'


120 posted on 02/07/2005 5:42:08 PM PST by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-209 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