Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (12396)	1/31/2003 11:54:43 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Bush 2004 Budget Plan Tops $2 Trillion By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer Fri Jan 31, 2:22 AM ET WASHINGTON - Congress gave President Bush (news - web sites) most of the defense buildup he proposed last year but killed his plan for long-term tax cuts, underlining the reality that the $2.2 trillion blueprint for 2004 he sends lawmakers next Monday will be merely a starting point. A look at how Bush's 2003 budget fared shows that many of his priorities did well, including an economic stimulus package that cut business taxes and extended jobless benefits. And while Congress has not finished most spending bills for this budget year — which started Oct. 1 — Bush will probably keep their cost below what many Democrats preferred and get at least what he wanted for homeland security, education and biomedical research. But other items on Bush's election-year agenda fell short. There was no energy bill, no balancing the budget by 2005 and no tax cuts for charitable giving or workers' health care costs. And while he blocked some new spending, he signed a 10-year farm package expected to cost $190 billion — tens of billions more than he proposed. Members of both parties agree that Bush has been adept at winning many of his top-tier budget priorities, but disagree about the consequences. "The president is very focused on a few things," said Peter Davis, an investment consultant and former Republican Senate aide. "He gets them done or sets the stage for getting them done later." "Unfortunately, he's largely successful in getting his budget priorities," lamented Sen. Kent Conrad (news, bio, voting record) of North Dakota, top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. "The tragedy is where it's leading us, deep into the swamp of deficits and debt." Some Bush priorities from last year were approved by the Republican-led House but died in the Democratic-run Senate, like cutting the inheritance tax and opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. This year, both chambers are controlled by Republicans and both of those items are back on the White House's agenda. "There's a new Congress now, and hopefully they will be able to move the president's initiatives along and we'll see some successes," said Amy Call, spokeswoman for the White House budget office. Other top items in the budget that Bush sent Congress last Feb. 4 died or were drastically transformed for other reasons. The administration never spent political capital on his $190 billion, 10-year plan to add prescription drug coverage to Medicare. The House and Senate had conflicting versions that never culminated in a final compromise, but allowed incumbents to tell voters that they had tried to provide the benefits. Bush has more than doubled the size of the package in his 2004 blueprint. Similarly, there was no overarching attempt to push the government back onto a path to a balanced budget, other than efforts by each party to block the other side's tax or spending priorities. As a result, last year's deficit was $158 billion, this year's was projected at $199 billion by the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) if Congress passes no initiatives, and there may be no return to balance anytime soon. Following are details of some high-profile proposals Bush made last year, and how they fared: _Defense: Bush got $366 billion of the $376 billion he wanted for this year's defense and military construction bills, about a $40 billion increase over 2002. Both bills have become law. _Homeland security: The remaining 11 spending bills — covering the entire government except the Pentagon (news - web sites) — are being worked out by House-Senate bargainers. The bills will likely include at least the $25 billion he proposed for domestic security, about double the 2002 total. Bush proposed $3.5 billion for local emergency workers; the Senate provided $3.3 billion, the House approved $2.4 billion. _Remaining domestic and foreign aid spending: Bush proposed limiting them to a cumulative 2 percent increase, more for some priorities like health research. It is unclear whether he will hold the increase to 2 percent, but he now supports extra spending for intelligence, Western firefighting and other items. _Education: Bush proposed nearly $53 billion for the Education Department, the same amount favored by the House and less than $1 billion over 2002. The Senate approved $59 billion. Bush proposed $8.5 billion for special education grants to states, $1 billion more than in 2002; the House would give him $8 billion, the Senate $8.3 billion. _National Institutes of Health: Bush proposed $27.2 billion, a $3.8 billion increase ending a five-year bipartisan drive to double the agency's funds. The House and Senate each voted $26.5 billion. _Taxes: Bush put a three-year price tag of $200 billion on a vaguely described economic stimulus plan. Congress approved one costing about $120 billion. He wanted to make permanent the $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut enacted in 2001 and move up the effective date of some of its provisions; none of that happened. Besides tax breaks for health insurance and charitable giving, proposed cuts for corporate research costs, long-term care and housing also died.

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (12396)	1/31/2003 12:03:40 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Al-Qaeda 'was making a dirty bomb' [And our country chooses to HYPER-focus on Saddam & Iraq] news.bbc.co.uk By Frank Gardner BBC security correspondent Friday, 31 January, 2003, 00:13 GMT British officials have presented evidence which they claim shows that al-Qaeda had been trying to assemble radioactive material to build a so-called dirty bomb. They have shown the BBC previously undisclosed material backing up their claim. It includes secret intelligence from agents sent by Britain into al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. Posing as recruits, they blended in and reported back. SAS officer inspects a deserted Afghan camp They revealed that Osama Bin Laden's weapons programme was further on than anyone thought. British officials said on Thursday Bin Laden now had gained the expertise and possibly the materials to build a crude radioactive bomb. The government says evidence suggests that by 1999, Bin Laden's priority was to develop a weapon of mass destruction. He had acquired radioactive isotopes from the Taleban to do this, officials said, adding that development work on the "dirty bomb" had been going on in a nuclear laboratory in the Afghan city of Herat. Evidence 'credible' The government even has al-Qaeda training manuals which detail how to use a dirty bomb to maximum effect. For a second opinion, the BBC showed some of the material to an expert on al-Qaeda. "I think this is genuine," said Dr Mustafa Alani, of the Royal United Service Institute. From nuclear weapons the threat is very, very slim "It is credible. This is proof that al-Qaeda put a lot of effort into collecting information and educating other members of the organisation. "It is possible to produce this sort of weapon." British military personnel worked with intelligence officers to gather material which was taken to Porton Down defence research centre in Wiltshire. Their conclusion was that al-Qaeda had a small dirty bomb but probably not a full blown nuclear device. "From nuclear weapons the threat is very, very slim," said Gary Samore, a former US National Security Council member. Al-Qaeda has built a lab in Herat To create one, he said, al-Qaeda would have needed to obtain weapons grade nuclear material - a difficult prospect. "On the other hand, the threat of a dirty bomb or radiological bomb, is much more plausible," he added. British officials say the "bomb" has never been recovered but at least one leading al-Qaeda weapons expert from Herat is still at large. Why the British government would release such top secret information has been questioned by some commentators in the Arabic world. Abdel Bari Atwan, the editor of Al Quds al Arabi, said it was an attempt to revive fears in Britain and the US about 11 September. "They would like to prove their point that there are links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda," he said.