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: American Spirit who wrote (12535)	2/4/2003 3:33:45 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

The Imbalanced Budget Lead Editorial The New York Times February 4, 2003 The $2.23 trillion budget unveiled by the Bush administration yesterday is the furthest thing from a fiscally conservative document. It shifts taxes from today's citizens to those of the future. Rather than truly giving state governments the power to be flexible, it sticks them with the responsibility for delivering the bad news to poor people who will be denied a health care safety net. The gargantuan defense budget is bloated with money for old-style weaponry needed only by defense contractors and military empire builders. President Bush's underlying budget philosophy can be seen in the contrast of two alarmingly aggressive proposals. In one, the administration invites states to slash Medicaid programs for many of the poor. It cynically eases the burden of deficit-ridden governors by offering them an initial budget sweetener along with the undoubtedly tempting management "freedom" to make severe cutbacks in health care benefits on their own. Meanwhile, the White House would significantly enlarge the amount of investment income that could be permanently sheltered from taxes in savings and retirement accounts. This is a switch that would benefit mainly higher-bracket Americans who have the surplus income to save more than current Individual Retirement Account programs allow. Since current workers might withdraw money from their existing I.R.A.'s, pay taxes and put the money in these more flexible accounts, the plan could create a one-time increase in tax revenue now, in return for sharply diminished revenue in the future. That's typical of so much of this administration's party-now-pay-later attitude toward the government's finances. Mr. Bush's theory is that the new savings accounts, along with an accelerated series of income tax cuts and this year's proposal for dramatically reducing the tax on dividends, will create growth that will stimulate new waves of revenue into the Treasury. But the administration dropped any budget forecast beyond five years — the point at which the full force of all its policies will be felt, for better or for worse. Meanwhile, the new fiscal year's budget includes a record deficit of $307 billion, with the total red ink adding up to more than $1 trillion over the next five years. The Concord Coalition, the watchdog group that helped prod the budget toward balance in the 90's, is warning politicians in their tax-cutting frenzy that "deficits merely shift the tax burden toward the future." Besides that, it will shift it downward to the states, which are left to struggle with the sluggish economy and the demands of anti-terrorism preparations without the necessary increase in federal assistance. The president's budget offers the nation the biggest military buildup since the cold-war years of Ronald Reagan, including more than $9 billion for the still unproved missile defense program. All the resolute campaign talk of finally cutting pork and defense boondoggles has gone by the wayside amid the dual drumbeats of homeland security bureaucracy and an invasion of Iraq. Yet the cost of that war is not even provided for in the budget, and the money for homeland security is heavily tilted toward capital spending for projects like overhauling the Coast Guard fleet, while other aspects of emergency preparedness, like border patrol and customs, are virtually ignored. The administration is clearly intent on using the war on terrorism and the return to deficit budgeting to dish up a wish list of policy initiatives for the new Republican-controlled Congress. When it comes to Mr. Bush's 10-year, $400 billion Medicare reform proposal, even his party's moderates question whether the president should force the elderly to choose between the popular traditional fee-for-service care and prescription drug aid. Mr. Bush has included some commendable nods to the compassionate side of compassionate conservatism, notably the increase in AIDS assistance for Africa. But over all, this budget is an act of buck-passing and procrastination as much as accounting. nytimes.com