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 $78 billion dollars.
So, realistically, anything short of spending cuts of these magnitudes really doesn't count as a budget cut at all.
Someone said once that only in Washington is a reduction in the rate of increase a "cut". About ten years ago the House GOP tried to reduce the rate of increase of Medicare I believe from 10% to 6.5%. They were absolutely destroyed for it, and in some ways they never recovered.
WHy should I read it? I can't vote on it. I would veto over half the darn thing.
I agree if your going to increase spending just to increase spending its totally misplaced. I do feel, our schools needed some kind of test.(NCLB) No sure that was the best way to it, but im sure the 80% increase isn't just for that program alone.
This is SCARY. What would happen to our economy if those foreign countries carrying our massive debt said we don't want to play with dollars any more?
From the Free Republic Homepage:
"Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse,..."
Doesn't this imply that we're independant conservatives as opposed to Republican Neocons? Yet some of us are troubled when others are critical of theBush Administration's lack of conservatism. The Republican Party is not with us in our efforts to "roll back decades of governmental largesse" In fact, they are the problem.
we can save 10's of billions if not 100's of billions by stopping all forms of aid to foreign countries.
And paying for the privilege, with higher taxes, higher inflation, and higher unemployment.
In 2004, the last year I have data at hand for, Entitlements were 1,404.2 B$, Defense was 473.8 B$, everything else was 514.6 B$.
The deficit was 592.1 B$ (FY 06 dollars), you could have completely cut either Defense or "everything else" and there would have STILL been a deficit. Pareto analysis indicates "attack entitlements". (Data from Air Force Magazine)
There is a great campaign platform "I'm not as bad as the other guys"
FY Original dollars Adjusted to FY2000 dollars 2001 343B 335B 2002 385B 367B 2003 421B 390B 2004 441B 396B 2005 475B 410B 2006 500B 418B (estimated) 2007 505B 412B (proposed)
Add to that the prescription drug handout which will cost another $38B in 2006 and $53B in 2007.
MNJohnnie, whatever the RNC is paying you to be an online shill they're certainly getting their money's worth. On the domestic front, this administration is LBJ all over again and no amount of ad homs will change that.
Discretionary, non DOD spending in constant FY2000 dollars.
FY Spending in billions 1981 282 1982 247 1983 242 1984 245 1985 255 1986 251 1987 238 1988 247 1989 255
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.