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

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

[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

[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 "en lement" 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?

[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]

I see you cannot dispute the facts.

Perhaps it is because of the big donkey 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 ed 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, S y.

[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

S y, 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?