Skip to comments.Did Anyone Actually Read Bush's Budget?
Posted on 02/08/2006 6:00:41 PM PST by Small-L
The AP calls it "austere." Reuters says it "cuts domestic programs from community policing to Medicare." The Washington Post: "drains money from two-thirds of federal agencies, continues a large military buildup" CNN: "Teachers, doctors protest budget cuts." USA Today: "Bush's budget big on security, Medicare, domestic programs trimmed." Even Republicans are critics. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., called the cuts in education and health "scandalous." Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, is "disappointed and even surprised."
All of which raises the question: Did anyone actually bother to read the budget? Apparently not. Because a casual look through the document finds that few of the claims holds water. As it turns out:
The Defense budget is going down, not up. Bush has set total Defense spending for 2007 at $504 billion, down from $512 billion in 2006. (Bush is increasing the "core" defense budget; the savings come from a proposed cutback in "emergency funding" for the Iraq War.) Bush wants to cut Defense spending still more in 2008, to $473 billion.
Ditto Homeland Security: Bush proposes spending $43.6 billion on Homeland Security, down from $43.8 billion in 2006. The figure keeps dropping each year for the next five.
Education spending is through the roof: Even if Bush does convince Congress to trim back on education spending in 2007, the Department of Education's budget will be 80% bigger than when Bush took office. In the eight years Bill Clinton was in the White House, education spending climbed just 17%.
Medicare "cuts" aren't cuts at all: The program will continue to grow at a healthy clip over the next five years, spending $100 billion more in 2011 than in 2007. All Bush is proposing is a modest adjustment in the rate of increase. Yes, the change adds up to $36 billion over five years, but that's a mere 1.6% of the $2.2 trillion in projected Medicare spending for those years.
Bush's 2007 budget is an extremely modest attempt to rein in what has been one of the most prolific spending sprees in modern American history. Under Bush, overall federal spending has climbed 20%. And that's after adjusting for inflation. (By comparison, spending climbed 12.7% in real terms during the Clinton years.)
Bush's 2007 is about $500 billion above where federal spending would be if he simply maintained the spending trend set by Bill Clinton.
It would be nice to blame the war on terror, or the growth in entitlement programs, for this climb. But spending on things other than Defense and Homeland Security, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and Medicare, actually rose at a faster rate -- 23%.
Here's another way to took at it. If Bush wanted to get spending back on the growth trajectory set by Clinton, he would need to cut more than $500 billion out of his budget this year alone. (See chart in article.) Even leaving out everything but non-Defense domestic discretionary spending, Bush's domestic discretionary spending for 2007 is above the Clinton trajectory by $78 billion dollars.
So, realistically, anything short of spending cuts of these magnitudes really doesn't count as a budget cut at all.
There will be 15,000 special pork projects packed in this one before it's final.
"doctors protest budget cuts..."
Oh, that's very persuasive.</sarc>
The MSM seems to be on a real rampage lately in trying to smear Bush. Knight-Ridder ran that piece on State today that was absolutly pathetic.
The trouble comes in when they seem to follow Dem talking point memos to the letter and then plain old make stuff up. Appears they'll do anything to put his approval ratings back in the tank.
As usually the pseudo Conservative Lieatrairans don't point out how this reflects the growth in mandatory Entitlement spend. Amazing how all these supposed "Fiscal Conservatives" never bother to point out how the problem in the Federal Budget is MANTATORY spending like Soc Security etc. Amazing how they are working so desperately hard to elect Democrats in 2006. Funny how they want a Govt controlled by people who will give them 100% of what they claim to loath.
From their actions it would seem they are NOT at all on our side. So which Move on.org Seminar about spreading disinformation on Conservative Websites did YOU attend SL? Perhaps you should, in the interest of full disclosure, change your name to Slimy Liberal.
After the Republicans have finished killing all the jihadis, Mullahs, and pot-belly dictators, and restored the 2A to its original intent, then we throw them out for the spending. It's a shame that they have decided to give up on the "limited government" schtick, but where would we be with President Kerry and Majority Leader Feinstein? Dying and learning Farsee, that's where.
How can 2.7 trillion have cuts? Any sane person should see through the spin.
What the hell ever happened to cutting government and limiting spending? Whatever happened to "STOP TAKING MY MONEY"? AAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHH!
I need asprin every time I see a 'conservative' budget.
Clinton likes it when the kids are dumb, it helps to expand the liberal base.
Funny how the spineless GOP Congress managed to do it without the WhiteHouse, and the near-filibuster-proof GOP can't even match their performance.
You ain't seen anything yet. Wait until this beast meanders its way through congress.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Funny how your actions do not match your retoric. Sorry but you do not fool anyone. So which Moveon.org seminar did you attend? Or do you work for the DNC directly?
Please... stop... you are scaring my kids... and me.
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.