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.
Those without facts or with weak arguments usually stoop to name calling.
If you can refute my points please do.
Otherwise, go flame someone else.
Proof....... You were whining along with Jesse Jackson that "all the votes should be counted in Ohio."
I can find the link to that thread if you wish, but that's all the proof anyone around here needs.........especially someone who lives in Ohio, and knows the complete idiocy of your claims that there was voter fraud from the Republicans here that hurt John Kerry.
You outted yourself, and you can't cover it up with your "I'm a conservative concerned with fiscal responsibility" phoniness....
So I guess accuracy and honesty in our voting system is not important to you?
I'm sure you would advocate getting to the bottom of the "vote fraud" in Washington State and Wisconsin for example, but because the totals favored you in Ohio, you can't be bothered.
Suit yourself.
Continue making up whatever claims you wish, my position on the pathetic way Ohio ran the election and counted the votes stands on its own merit.
It is you who continues to reference jesse jackass, not I.
My point remains the same. 100% accuracy in voting and counting of the vote, anything less is an open invitation for fraud.
"Why the hell is he messing with veterans benefits?"
I'm a retired veteran with a minor service-connected disability. I deserve medical care for that specific disability. But NO WAY do I deserve the VA routine medical services I've been offered.
The VA shouldn't be funded to take care of veterans' non-service-connected health ailments.
Why not?
If I agree with someone, I agree with them. Don't much care what you think his political position is.
Eliminate the following:
The Department of Energy
The Department of Agriculture
The Department of Education
The EPA
The Department of Transportation
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Kill all boondoggle projects such as the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. All other departments to get increases only in line with inflation, with the exception of Defence.
Regards, Ivan
Unfortunately, there is no reduction in a 3.5% increase.
Liberals........the new 'fiscal conservatives.' LOL!
Unfortunately, the reverse seems to be the more common trend: "Conservatives........the new fiscal liberals".
Add the IRS, BATFE, and the DEA to that list and you'd REALLY be able to save some money...
The Ohio election is not the subject of this thread (I only brought it up as proof that you are not a conservative), so I won't pursue it any farther than this, but if you believe that our election was 'pathetic' then you are at odds with our Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, who is one of the most conservative, intelligent, and honorable men I know, and you are in agreement with Jesse Jackson.
All your whinings and protestations to the contrary do not change the facts. And those facts call into question anything you may say on this forum in pretense of being a conservative.
I agree that conservatives have been spending too much of our money.........but that is what makes me somewhat pleased that this budget is beginning to reverse the trend.
Kill and EAT... kill and eat. Get it right, dude.
I am sorry, I dont see it. Where is the fiscal responsibility. We are bringing in 2.1 trill and spending over 2.5. Am I missing something? Are the numbers reversed?
So, where are these cuts? I don't see them.
2.57 trillion comes out to about $9000 dollars per person, taking away children probably puts it around $15,000 that goes to the Federal government. This isn't counting state or county taxes that we all pay too. This is pure tyranny. And all these press reports like the WP editorial worrying about the 'poor' etc..
The best way to help the poor is to increase economic growth and thats done by getting government off our back.
I'd like to use a weight loss analogy. If your current consumption of calories results in weight gain, a "maintenance" diet won't work. You must first get back to an ideal weight before going on maintenance. The question is whether the federal budget is at an ideal weight.(At this point the picture of Ted Kennedy in a bathing suit that has appeared in many recent posts comes to mind.)
If you look at recent budget spending figures you will find that the spending restraint of the mid 90's led to the surplus.
Once that surplus was achieved Washington went on an eating binge(both parties). Spending increases went from ~3% to around ~9%.
So much for being the party of fiscal conservatism
Bump this to all the way to Washington, DC for crying out loud. Two thirds of what the Fed Gov does should be and could be cut. Send those social programs back to the states.
Cutting vet benefits is a bad thing. Especially medical care for vets.
Its also the largest budget ever, so much for this Ap writers sanity
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.