W's Budget Ax Falls Mostly On The Poor

[Nbadan]

President Bush is proposing to reduce spending on public health and social welfare in the US to help pay for tax cuts and the war in Iraq, according to early reports of today's White House budget.

In an attempt to keep government spending under control at a time of record deficits, Mr Bush's proposals to Congress will include cuts in public housing subsidies, in health projects aimed at diseases related to poverty, and in food stamps, which help America's poorest buy groceries.

Mr Bush inherited a budget surplus from Bill Clinton but is now running deficits of over $400bn (£215bn) a year, partly as a result of an economic slump and the September 11 attacks. But the turnaround is also due to huge tax cuts which disproportionately benefit the wealthiest 1% of Americans, and the war in Iraq, for which the administration has asked for another $80bn this year.

Some state governments provide food stamps not only to families on welfare but also to those receiving job-related aid such as for childcare. The new budget would restrict that practice, the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday.

more…

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1407400,00.html)

Hey, why should the rich pay for their own wars when they can just pass the buck to the poor and middle class, right? :flipoff

[Nbadan]

Oh yeah, lets not forget to screw the veterans too...


By ROBERT PEAR and CARL HULSE

Published: February 7, 2005

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 - President Bush's budget would more than double the co-payment charged to many veterans for prescription drugs and would require some to pay a new fee of $250 a year for the privilege of using government health care, administration officials said Sunday.

The proposals, they said, are in the $2.5 trillion budget that Mr. Bush plans to unveil on Monday. White House officials said the budget advanced his goal of cutting the deficit, which hit a record last year.

. . .

The new budget will not show the costs of the president's top domestic priority, revamping Social Security to let people divert some of their payroll taxes to individual investment accounts.

To finance the change, Mr. Cheney said, the federal government would need to borrow $750 billion in the next 10 years and "trillions more after that." But, he said, "the personal accounts will themselves provide a significant return for those who hold them, so that they'll get a better deal."

. . .

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/politics/07budget.html?hp&ex=1107752400&en=0d92f7f085e39dde&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

[2pac]

I see the chip is still firmly on your shoulder.

[travis2]

I see the chip is still firmly on your shoulder.

More like up his @$$...

[ididnotnothat]

Hey, the people of Iraq are more important than those in the US. What's 80 billion dollars for the war on Iraq compared to a few million dollar cutbacks on "entitlement" programs.

More money for weapons is needed and those "poor" people have to sacrifice.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

The "Not Child Left Behind" president's budget has one out of every three of the targeted programs in education.

And even major military weapons programs would be scrapped to make more resources available for the war in Iraq. What do you think of that NeoCons?

[Hook Dem]

The "Not Child Left Behind" president's budget has one out of every three of the targeted programs in education.

And even major military weapons programs would be scrapped to make more resources available for the war in Iraq. What do you think of that NeoCons?
http://tinypic.com/1o6gjd

[MannyIsGod]

Well, there's a 4.8 budget increase overall for military spending yet cuts in most other areas, 1/3 of which come in education.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

http://tinypic.com/1o6gjd

I see you cannot dispute the facts.

Perhaps it is because of the big donkey dick you're getting screwed with.

[SpursWoman]

Well, there's a 4.8 budget increase overall for military spending yet cuts in most other areas, 1/3 of which come in education.


Where would you start (spending cuts) if it were all up to you?

[SPARKY]

One cannot help but wonder at some point: who's going to pay for all of this? While it is disconcerting that a supposedly conservative Republican administration is spending like there's no tomorrow, one can't help but be bemused by those on the left who find that worthy of criticism.

As much as people refuse to admit it, they are as guilty as politicians at the federal government are when it comes to the current federal fiscal position. Everyone wants low taxes and for the government to spend heavily on a host of programs they want.

While 'welfare programs' aimed at the poor are worthy of some consideration as to their effectiveness and externalities, one must also recognize the significant amount of welfare devoted to the middle class and its impact on the federal budget.

It's easy to get joe six pack energized about the mythical black welfare queen but it's far more difficult to point out that he himself is a welfare queen.

Also of note is that Bush's $2.57 trillion does not include certain items, such as military operations, the cost of repealing the AMT (assuming W doesnt want his people to lose out on their tax cut), and the cost of SS private accounts.

So the lazy poor get handouts while the middle class get Medicare, student loans and various tax credits and deductions. We're all fucked but let's just pass the buck on down the line.

[MannyIsGod]

SW, in the place where spending is actually increasing. The military.

[SpursWoman]

SW, in the place where spending is actually increasing. The military.


What are they spending that's not necessary at this juncture? As long as the troops are still there, you can't cut them off...

[Useruser666]

We can't cut back on the military right now. If you take note, there have been several expensive programs that have been cut by the military. Or maybe we can just close another base here in town.

[Shelly]

I, for one, am not for cutting military spending. My dad's business at one time was probably 75% dependent on military contracts and when they started cutting back, it got very lean there for a few years. He was really worried that he would have to close his business down during that time. He was able to survive because of what we do and branch out, but I'm sure there are a lot of suppliers that weren't so lucky.

[SPARKY]

That sounds a lot like the argument made by those opposed to the closing of Kelly. The "it's always been that way" or economic impact argument. Sorry, it's national defense, nothing else.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

What are they spending that's not necessary at this juncture? As long as the troops are still there, you can't cut them off...

Well, as long as there are still veterans and children people living in the US, you can't cut them off...

[JohnnyMarzetti]

I, for one, am not for cutting military spending. My dad's business at one time was probably 75% dependent on military contracts and when they started cutting back, it got very lean there for a few years. He was really worried that he would have to close his business down during that time. He was able to survive because of what we do and branch out, but I'm sure there are a lot of suppliers that weren't so lucky.

I for one don't want to see military spending continue just to keep businesses alive by making $250 toilet seats and sticking it to the taxpayers.

But I'm sure Halliburton agrees with you.

[Shelly]

Brilliant, Johnny! Just Brilliant.

[Useruser666]

I for one don't want to see military spending continue just to keep businesses alive by making $250 toilet seats and sticking it to the taxpayers.

But I'm sure Halliburton agrees with you.

Yeah this is all about Halliburton.

[SpursWoman]

Brilliant, Johnny! Just Brilliant.


You're too kind, Shelly.

[Shelly]

Yeah, SW. I know. I guess some of those mom and pop suppliers don't deserve to stay in business because they sell to the military.

[Clandestino]

the military is the reason why we can do as we please... you can't cut their budgets..s

[MannyIsGod]

the military is the reason why we can do as we please... you can't cut their budgets..s

And there in one very so clear statement, lies my problem with the united states' military spending

Shelly, I completely understand what you are saying, but government cuts in any sector hurt mom and pop business, not simply cuts in the military sector.

The military sector is by far the largest portion of our federal budget. And it's the only one growing overall.

BTW, this budget doesn't even include spending in Iraq or Afghanistan, so cutting military spending within it is not tatamount to cutting our troops off.

There are huge amounts of spending going on for programs such as the F22, B2, JSF (I'm mostly familliar with the avaition portion of it) as well as missle defense.

Our current forgien policy demands a military of this size because thats how it exerts power. When people talk about foreign aid as a huge dipolmatic chip I can't help but laugh because the biggest diplomatic chip isn't diplomatic at all, its our military.

At some point, I don't think this is worth the expense. We don't have a USSR or a nazi Germany to worry about, so why do we need such a huge military? And yes, we need to be ready, and I don't doubt that. But I think we could maintain a much smaller and advanced military to do this.

[Useruser666]

Manny, you know what the JSF is don't you?

[MannyIsGod]

The Joint Strike Fighter, why?

[SpursWoman]

BTW, this budget doesn't even include spending in Iraq or Afghanistan, so cutting military spending within it is not tatamount (tatamount?) to cutting our troops off.


Is there a breakdown anywhere (a link or something) of what the increases consist of, if they don't include Iraq or Afghanistan?

[MannyIsGod]

I'll try to find something, but I know it doesn't include Iraq and Afghanistan. Just like last year, that will be presented as a supplement to the budget after the actual budget is passed. That in itself is another issue that makes people groan, because it doens't report the true budget.

[SpursWoman]

I'm looking too, but I can't find anything.

That seriously doesn't make sense....I'd get fired for presenting a budget like that. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2005/d20050207budget.pdf

Thats the acutaly DOD budget breakdown.

and here is an article on the budget supplement.

Bush administration planning supplemental war budget for 2006


By Lisa Burgess, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Tuesday, February 8, 2005

ARLINGTON, Va. — The Bush administration is taking the same approach to defense spending in fiscal 2006 it began with the 2004 budget: presenting a “baseline” request to Congress that is only slightly different from the previous year, but adding billions more with a supplemental request to cover operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Congressional Democrats have been critical of the Bush administration’s ongoing use of supplementals to fund the war, saying the requests make it easier for defense officials to avoid congressional oversight of war spending and play a shell game with defense spending.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has approved $203 billion in supplemental requests. If the latest request is approved, that goes up to $280 billion.

But defense officials defend the practice, saying that the security situation in Iraq, especially, is so unpredictable that using the regular budget to fund the operation would be too restrictive.

Because supplemental requests are put together much more quickly than regular budgets, defense officials said they have more flexibility to move and add money as conditions on the ground change.

“We are bearing, clearly, the heavy burden in this war,” a senior Army budget official said Friday. “The base budget would not allow us to mobilize our forces.”

“We can be more accurate in our estimates,” another official added. “It’s not hiding anything.”

Some analysts disagree.

“The war is not a surprise anymore,” said Steve Kosiak, a top analyst for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment in Washington. “We know we’re going to be there. Not [budgeting] for war costs is really inexcusable at this point.

“This administration came into office saying they would not play all these games with supplementals, but they’ve crossed the line, I’d say,” he said.

The supplemental request will pay for all the costs associated with Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, including the salaries of an additional 18,000 active-duty soldiers who are now on the payroll; the cost of refurbishing equipment lost or worn out in Iraq and Afghanistan; the ammunition expended by U.S. troops in those countries; and equipping, housing, feeding and entertaining deployed troops.

But the supplemental also will pay for more than just direct war costs. Army officials are counting on receiving $5 billion in the upcoming request to create and equip three new combat brigade teams — the service’s new self-sufficient, lighter, high-tech “transformational” unit with about 4,000 soldiers.

Paying for the three new brigade combat teams in the supplemental is kosher, an Army official said, even though the units will be a permanent part of the Army, not just something cobbled together in response to the Iraq or Afghanistan operations.

“These are forces we are deploying to the battle space,” the official said. When Army units return from Iraq rotations, “we are resetting them [as BCTs] to go right back into the war.”


http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=27053

[MannyIsGod]

I'm looking too, but I can't find anything.

That seriously doesn't make sense....I'd get fired for presenting a budget like that. :lol

It allows politicians to play a game of sort. They can say "we're only increasing the budget by blah blah or we're cutting the budget by blah blah" into soundbites at this time of the year, but in reality the budget is much higher because of the 2 major operations in the middle east.

[Shelly]

There are huge amounts of spending going on for programs such as the F22, B2, JSF (I'm mostly familliar with the avaition portion of it) as well as missle defense.

Well, while the business is owned by my mom and pop, those are exactly the types of contracts we do. It was our cranes that were used to build the Stealth Bomber.

These programs that get cut hurt our business which I why I can't agree with you. I respect your opinion, though.

[violentkitten]

thats a risk of doing business with a government. it is still named the department of defense not the department of full employment and infinite contracts.

[Shelly]

Maybe so, but you see it one way and I see it another. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[GoldToe]

It's also fascinating that he leaves out, in his budget, the cost to privatize Social Security, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, OR the cost of keeping his tax cuts permanent. Why? Well, if you include those, the tagline that they'll cut the deficit in half by 2009 will no longer be true (even though if those 3 things happen, it won't be true anyway).

That's my two cents. Now I'll put a sock in it.

[scott]

Well, spending cuts need to come from somewhere...

A note on Bush's pledge to cut the deficit in half, which I find humorous. The administration is saying that they will succeed in cutting it in half if they get the deficit to somewhere around $280 billion by 2009. They base "success" on cutting the projected 2004 deficit from earlier this year in half... when it was projected at $560 billion or so. The actual deficit for 2004 is actually going to be something like $480 billion... but that isn't the number they are going to cut in half... its the $560 (which never occurred) that they are cutting in half.

I don't really care, I just think its a funny little factoid. They could have projected the defecit at $960 billion and then they'd already have the mission accomplished.

But... back on topic. I've been bitching about Bush's fiscal policy since the day it starded looking like a college kid's first credit card activity. I like that he is finally showing SOME retraint, although I think it's just politics. Spending is increasing overall and at a faster pace than any gauge of inflation I might add.

I still see a dangerous recipe for stagflation in America, even if I'm the minority in doing so. Trade deficits will continue to eat away at GDP (the trade deficit reduced GDP growth by 1.7 percentage points in 2004), consumer sentiment and spending have been shaky the last few data points, and rising interest rates could put a damper on corporate debt financing. In the near to intermediate term, Government spending will likely remain the key driver of GDP growth (not a good thing!). Recession probability, while still well below 50%, is increased, in my opinion.

On the flation side of stagflation, there is decreased demand for money, both in the domestic markets and the internation markets (demonstrated by the dollar's plunge). Most telling, however, is the growth of money supply (any series will work for those interested in doing some fact checking/further research - M2 is the common method though). Empirical studies have shown that money supply growth is the variable with the highest correlation to inflation- and the money supply has been growing at a healthy clip in the last year.

While I lean towards continued economic growth over recession, my own inflation estimates are higher than consensus (new Blue Chip Economic Indicators just came out today - consensus GDP Price Index was around 2.0% for 2005), I'd put it in the mid 3's.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, spending cuts need to come from somewhere...



That's definetly true, and if I'm going to stay true to being the libertarian I say I am, I should be supporting government cuts.

And the truth is, I do. I think we shoudl definetly work torwards having a society with much less government involvement, but I think we should do so at a pace which isn't wreckless. I don't think that's the case here for a zillion reasons, but that's the the point I'm trying to make in this thread.

I do feel the way the cuts are handed out is very indicative of the personality of America and this administration as a whole, and I hate that. That's my main beef.

As to the economic portion of your post, I am pretty much as a loss, but I'll try to understand it tomorrow when I reread it. I promise nothing, but I usually am willing to trust your judgement in that area.