According to the White House's calculations, the proposed budget
will produce a deficit of $304 billion this year and $307 billion
in '04. The papers all point out that those numbers are almost
certainly too rosy since they don't take into account war with
Iraq, rebuilding that country, or Bush's proposed tax cuts. Among
the programs that get slashed in the budget: the EPA's
clean-water fund, a Clinton-era effort to put more cops on the
streets, and a decade-old program to upgrade public housing.
The papers all seem a bit surprised by the audaciousness of the
budget. A stuffed WP "news analysis" calls it evidence that Bush
has essentially dropped his "compassionate conservatism" and
instead signed on to the Reagan Revolution of tax cuts, deficits,
and limited domestic spending. The LAT news piece on the budget
also invokes the Gipper.
The NYT editorial page isn't a huge fan of the budget, calling it
"an act of buck-passing and procrastination." That's love-talk
compared to the Post's editorial on the White House's proposed
personal savings accounts, which were formally unveiled in the
budget. Calling them a "Trojan horse" tax cuts for the rich, the
Post says that the proposals, which would allow people to stash
away tax-free thousands in investment income, are further
"indications of this administration's recklessness when it comes
to the future fiscal health of the nation." The Wall Street
Journal's editorial page thinks its competitors should chill out;
it calls worries about the deficit needless "moaning."
slate.msn.com |
