Posted on 02/12/2005 9:19:48 PM PST by theneocon
President Bush unfurled his 2,300-page, $2.57 trillion budget proposal--the largest federal budget in history--on Monday morning, in a press availability with reporters, and at some point someone asked him what he thought about the document. "It is a budget that sets priorities," the president said, before adding, "it's a budget that focuses on results."
Less than 24 hours later, however, the Washington press corps, no doubt after reading all the budget's 2,300 pages, and no doubt after digesting the various expenditure tables and deficit projections and other fiscal gobbledygook included therein, reached a very, very different conclusion. Namely: The 2006 budget is . . . well, nothing less than an unprecedented, shameless, and otherwise brutish and medieval proposal to "slash" funding for "popular programs" that help "low-income children," "farmers," and the "police." Besides which, it's "unrealistic."
That, anyhow, is the way two Washington Post reporters, Peter Baker and Jonathan Weisman, characterized Bush's proposals in separate articles for their paper's February 8 edition. And, truth is, such a characterization may be right; for the first time since he took office in 2001, the president wants Congress to shrink some portion of the federal government in real terms.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
I wouldn't count on him doing any significant cuts (certainly not enough to make up for his $572 billion medicare package, excuse me, I think now the estimate is around $740 billion) but I suppose we can wait and hope.
I certainly hope so. We need a balanced budget. This is one thing with which the lefties have to beat us over the head. Of course, Dubya has had a lot of disasters, not to mention two wars, to pay for and to run the deficit up, so he can't be blamed for all of it.
I fully agree. This budget is beginning to look more responsible and more like how a true conservative would approach it.
The problem is that the first person to name a number in any negotiation is the loser, unless that number gives big room for negotiation. That 1% cut in real discretionary spending will translate to, probably, 4-5% increase in real discretionary spending after our Republican Congress gets through with it. To think the Administration is not complicit in that is, to my way of thinking, naive in the extreme.
But, the posturing is great meat for the masses. Makes people think they are "fiscal conservatives". Just like the pre-election Marriage Amendment talk made them look like "social conservatives", only to be jettisoned after being reelected. Just like the pre-election anti-abortion talk, in order to make them look "pro-life", is jettisoned with Mr. Specter and Mr. Gonzales. Just like the pre-election (2000) anti-CFR talk was jettisoned after that election.
So, look for nothing more that huge deficits, with blame going to "conservatives", while the other big spenders (the left) take credit for trying to hold down the deficit.
The rats have been complaining Bush has a big budget and we need to tighten up etc. then he tigntens up and the Rats come out of the woodwork all week saying Bush is hurting kids, old people and education etc. because he's not spending enough.
Wake me up when they cut out PBS, NPR and the NEA.
I may be wrong, but it would be unprecedented (not for me to be wrong, Lord knows, but for Congress to restrain itself). What I cannot understand is why, if they are going to take the heat anyway, not make REAL cuts? Propose, say, a 10% cut in real spending and settle for 5%.
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.