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

Skip to comments.

Bush would cut or end 141 programs
WaPo/Star-Telegram ^ | Feb. 05, 2006 | AMY GOLDSTEIN

Posted on 02/05/2006 8:29:44 PM PST by ncountylee

WASHINGTON - President Bush plans to propose a $2.7 trillion budget Monday that would shrink most parts of the government unrelated to national security while slowing spending on Medicare by $36 billion during the next five years, according to White House documents.

The budget that Bush is to recommend to Congress will call for eliminating or reducing 141 programs, for a savings of $14.5 billion, across a broad swath of federal agencies, according to administration and congressional officials who have had access to budget documents. Wide-ranging as they are, those cuts pale in comparison with the White House's attempt to carve money from Medicare, the first tangible result from a vow the president made in his State of the Union address last week to constrain the massive entitlement programs for the elderly and poor.

Spending for the departments of Commerce, Education, Energy and Interior would be flat or decrease.

In contrast, the president plans to recommend for the Department of Homeland Security an increase of at least 5 percent from this year's funding, $30.8 billion. The White House is also trying again to increase passengers' security fees for air travel from $2.50 per flight to $5, a proposal that Congress swiftly rejected last year.

Similarly, the budget will suggest a hike of nearly 5 percent in the Pentagon's funding for next year, defense officials said.

The $439.3 billion includes $84.2 billion for weapons systems, an 8 percent increase in weapons spending.

The effort to curb Medicare spending by $36 billion by 2011 and by $105 billion a decade from now is a sharp turnabout for the administration. Last year, Bush said the health-insurance program that covers 41 million elderly and disabled people should be spared any cuts.

(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bushdoctrineunfold; govwatch; libertarians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last
To: KevinDavis
and Bush bashing bots...

Well, FR is a conservative forum. Bush, not being conservative, has no place on FR! ;-D

41 posted on 02/05/2006 8:57:41 PM PST by xrp (Every time Chuck Norris sneezes, a third-world contry is annihilated from the face of the Earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Well said! (despite our differences on the drug threads)


42 posted on 02/05/2006 8:59:57 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (None genuine without my signature)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser
And the U.S. doesn't currently take in 2.7 trillion in taxes annually. More deficits and debts for our children to pay.

We don't have to accept the President's budget. There is no reason why the Congress can't write a budget that will be in balance, except they would then be replaced in the next elections by voters who demand their programs be expanded.

I'm sure the President's budget is a well reasoned approach to getting us to a balanced budget over a time frame the administration thinks is politically viable. It's possible the budget can be improved by the Congress and the recent Alito confirmation gives me hope that Republicans are marching in unison and the rats are fractured. Republicans may have enough loyalty to skim a few DINOs and pass some stuff.

Republicans are bolstered by the fact that rats have been complaining about ballooning deficits, but they are unable to act on those complaints by proposing deeper cuts.

43 posted on 02/05/2006 9:06:25 PM PST by Once-Ler (The rat 06 election platform will be a promise to impeach the President if they win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ncountylee

'Bout damn time. Although, after all the increases we've seen, I wouldn't exactly call these "cuts".


44 posted on 02/05/2006 9:07:11 PM PST by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ncountylee

Blah blah blah...

His free drugs for Seniors will cost more than 10,000 programs.


45 posted on 02/05/2006 9:08:49 PM PST by DoughtyOne (If it's a "Religion of Peace", some folks just aren't very religious.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kilowhskey
Well yes, kilowhskey, we could save another 60 billion by stopping the flood of criminal Christian invaders from the south. They give no whit about our Constitution, the whit they give is for their own country and the family they left and the culture they love back home.

Meanwhile we sing Psalms to their quaint but dysfunctional culture.

Sure thing, gang, we shall overcome, but only after we, ourselves, have been throughly overcame by greedy and lesser interlopers.

Wait and see.
46 posted on 02/05/2006 9:17:48 PM PST by the final gentleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tlj18

Bingo - President Bush is definitely a spending liberal. Does he know he has a veto pen? I think not. Bummer.


47 posted on 02/05/2006 9:19:58 PM PST by DennisR (Look around - God is giving you countless observable clues of His existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler
PresBush and the GOP Congress spend the taxpayers money like liberals. If the Democrats controlled the federal government, they'd spend more like socialists. Neither case is acceptable to conservatives.

The GOP had tremendous success in the 1990`s, holding Clinton in check on spending. But they can't hold this GOP President's liberal spending habits in check, or their own pork barrel spending. Pathetic.

48 posted on 02/05/2006 9:20:18 PM PST by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll
Of course. But it will look good in front of the cameras and the party faithful. And that's all conservatism has become. Looks.
49 posted on 02/05/2006 9:51:27 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis

1/2 of 1 percent is not a baby step. That's not even a baby rolling over. Believe what you like, but this is pandering to the faithful to appear like he's actually been doing something...


50 posted on 02/05/2006 9:53:41 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tlj18
14.5 billion is virtually nothing. I'll take note when it's several hundred billion.

Bingo! My perception, (and I hope someone can provide data) is the PER CENTAGE of each of the Federal expenses by department over the last 50 years. And a graphical presentation would be extraordinary. I've seen these in the past but did not save the data nor the graphic.

51 posted on 02/05/2006 10:12:36 PM PST by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal

Eliminate the Department of Education. I like that idea. At the very least they should reduce from a cabinet level department.


52 posted on 02/05/2006 10:13:45 PM PST by DuckFan4ever (Defeat Kulongoski in '06.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser
A 7% cut in all non-defense spending like Herman Cain campaigned here in Georgia on would be nice.

El Wrongo. It should be a 90% cut for non defence spending.

I hate socialism where a half of my income is confiscated by government entities.

Joe Six-Pack is clueless in reading their pay stubs, and bills from hundreds of entities charging taxes and fees embedded into the statement.

Liberals do not understand the concept of creeping socialism. Ergo, they want more taxes.

53 posted on 02/05/2006 10:19:32 PM PST by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ncountylee

I'd be in favor of cutting free hotel rides for Katrina *victims*. And for cutting welfare. And excessive pay hikes and retirement benefits for polititions. And the public school system. And.....


54 posted on 02/05/2006 10:21:55 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler
"There is no reason why the Congress can't write a budget that will be in balance, except they would then be replaced in the next elections by voters who demand their programs be expanded."

This is really a defeatist attitude. In the latter half of the nineties, the executive and legislative branches all supported balanced budgets, despite their differences. Today, one party runs the whole show, so why can't they get it do the same? Our grandchildren will be paying for the irresponsible behavior of the last few years.
55 posted on 02/05/2006 11:45:41 PM PST by km6xu (1998 Onion Headline: Palestinian Gunman Angered by Stereotypes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ncountylee
Wait, wasn't it something just over $2.4 last time around?

How about doing something really daring - like just freezing it exactly in place for a year? I bet the Earth wouldn't stop spinning if we tried it.

Then, when we find we all survived that, freeze it again. And again, and again, until the bastard strangles. Big Stupid Government needs its money supply cut off.

56 posted on 02/05/2006 11:51:05 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government "job" attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
The GOP had tremendous success in the 1990`s, holding Clinton in check on spending. But they can't hold this GOP President's liberal spending habits in check, or their own pork barrel spending. Pathetic.

The spending increases were necessary to deal with a recession and the WOT. As a practical Republican I think those are concessions you make to stay in power and solve the problems that can be solved.

You maybe right. What we really should do during a recession and a time of war is reduce spending. That's a good argument. Me, I'm willing to take out a loan if my car breaks down, my kids want to go to college, or I need to buy a gun really quick because my neighbors have threatened to kill me.

Clinton got a balanced budget from the Congress at the expense of our military, but his spending in 95 was 20.7% of GDP. Reagan's in 85 was 22.8% of GDP. Dubya's was 19.9% in 05. So far Dubya's budgets have all been smaller in terms of GDP than the Reagan/Bush budgets. The budgets Dubya signed are not much higher than the 18.4% and 18.6% GPD spending of the lowest budgets clinton signed.

In light of the facts, and the context of reality, characterizing Dubya's modest increases from the late 90's budgets as "liberal" sounds like slavish conservative misrepresentation.

No other President has fought a major conflict without raising taxes since before the Civil War. But like you, I'm very happy the President is pushing to cut some fat out of government, and I hope to hear more.

I agree that excessive Federal spending is counter productive. We have to convince the voters, and that is hard because America has always looked to government to fix problems and we have thrived with a deficit for most of our history.

I think as we get closer to election time we will see a stark contrast between the cuts Republicans want to make, and the increases rats demand. Cynical conservatives and their rat counterparts will interprete this as Republicans submitting to the demands of the base but actually they will be responding to changing public opinion and a satisfied electorate that finally willing to tighten the belt.

We may also see a conflict in Iran soon, and you may be reminded of another big difference between rats and Republicans. If Iran is solved by the end of Dubya term, or near the begining of his successor we will again be able to balance the budget by gutting the military, and people will talk about the terrorism dividend like Reagan's peace dividend.

57 posted on 02/06/2006 12:24:08 AM PST by Once-Ler (The rat 06 election platform will be a promise to impeach the President if they win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ncountylee

A pittance but a step in the right direction. Glad to see he is rediscovering his fiscal conservative roots.


58 posted on 02/06/2006 12:30:29 AM PST by spikeytx86 (Beware the Democratic party has been over run by CRAB PEOPLE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden

I have been thinking about that for a while now. I would like to see a candidate campaign on the promise that he will freeze current spending levels for his entire term. If Successive Presidents do that same not only will we have a balanced budget, we will have a government that might be controllable.


59 posted on 02/06/2006 12:35:58 AM PST by spikeytx86 (Beware the Democratic party has been over run by CRAB PEOPLE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ncountylee

Cool. Let's get it started. Maybe the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS which controls the purse strings, can double or triple that cut in spending. :)


60 posted on 02/06/2006 12:48:51 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat ((I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of Dependence on Government!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 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