Did Anyone Actually Read Bush's Budget?

TCSDaily ^ | 8 Feb 06 | John Merline

[Zack Nguyen]

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.

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.

[Feiny]

WHy should I read it? I can't vote on it. I would veto over half the darn thing.

[Echo Talon]

If an 80% increase in Dept. or Ed. funding had improved our schools and the quality of education, I'd be the first one cheering for it. But sadly, No Child Left Behind appears to have done more harm than good, especially when you consider the money being spent by the school systems filling out the paperwork that it required, and the fact that it has diverted attention away from the real problems.

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.

[afnamvet]

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?

[RWE]

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.

[conservative physics]

we can save 10's of billions if not 100's of billions by stopping all forms of aid to foreign countries.

[adorno]

To liberals, a non-existent cut is a cut.

Right!

A budget cut is when somebody doesn't get what they had in mind, even if it was never in the budget priviously, or a particular program is not needed anymore.

Sort of like a teenager not getting that new pair of jeans she had in mind but won't be getting.

[Names Ash Housewares]

[manwiththehands]

I am so happy "Republicans" are in control of Washington.

[El Gato]

where would we be with President Kerry and Majority Leader Feinstein? Dying and learning Farsee, that's where.

And paying for the privilege, with higher taxes, higher inflation, and higher unemployment.

[El Gato]

All very fine, but how much of the budget do all those categories, other than new mandatory spending, encompass?

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)

[calljack]

There is a great campaign platform "I'm not as bad as the other guys"

[CGTRWK]

Federal discretionary, non DOD spending in constant FY2000 dollars, as taken from the Budget of the US Government, historical tables listed on the White House website here.

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.

[CGTRWK]

And from the same source, just for kicks, here is what a real conservative's record looks like:

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