Both Sides Fault Bush's Budget Plan
The $2.4-trillion election-year proposal embraces deficit spending but is meant to reassure conservatives with
fiscal discipline. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FISCAL DISCIPLINE!!!!!!!!
By Janet Hook, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — President Bush unveiled a $2.4-trillion election-year
budget Monday that promised a new effort to limit the growth of government
but still embraced deficit spending for years to come.
The budget, which provides a window into what Bush would do if elected to a
second term, calls for continuing the robust expansion of defense and
homeland security spending that has been the hallmark of his administration.
Bush also called for
consolidating one of the
biggest accomplishments
of his first term in the
White House — the tax
cuts enacted in 2001.
He proposed making
permanent the sweeping
cuts, which are to expire
before the end of the
decadeMAKING SURE WE"LL BE SUNK!!!!!!
The budget is the
opening shot of an
election-year battle as
Bush's proposals make
their way through the Republican-controlled House and Senate. It will set up
the debate between the parties, and will help Bush build support within his
own party.
For conservative Republicans, Bush's budget is intended to show a renewed
commitment to their cause of fiscal discipline. Many of them have been
disillusioned with budget policies that they consider profligate. But the budget
also includes increases for education and arts funding, which appeals to swing
voters and moderate Republicans.
Bush built his new budget for the year that begins Oct. 1 around the goal of
reducing this year's $521-billion deficit by half within five years — mostly by
imposing a virtual freeze on spending for everything but national defense,
homeland security and federal benefits.
"The government must exercise fiscal responsibility by limiting spending
growth, focusing on the results of government programs and cutting wasteful
spending," Bush said in his formal budget message.
Some conservative critics remain unimpressed, saying Bush's budget does not
go far enough to curb Medicare, Social Security and other big benefit
programs.
"I see almost nothing good about this budget," said William A. Niskanen,
chairman of the Cato Institute, a libertarian research group. "This is
big-government conservatism."
Even if Bush succeeded in his proposal to reduce the deficit to $237 billion in
2009, the gap would still be bigger than in all but three years over the last
generation. But the cuts Bush proposes — including the elimination of 65
programs — may go too far for many in Congress, where even Republicans
warn that it is unrealistic to expect lawmakers to squeeze popular programs in
an election year.
"It is all fantasy," said a senior House Republican aide.
What's more, the budget probably understates future deficits because it does
not include funding for several initiatives that administration and congressional
officials expect or hope to be enacted. Most notably, it includes no funding for
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan — an expense that Pentagon
officials said could exceed $50 billion in 2005.
The budget also makes no provision for Bush's idea of reforming Social
Security to allow people to invest part of their payroll taxes in individual
investment accounts, an initiative that could cost more than $1.24 trillion over
10 years for the transition to a new system. Although Bush is expected to
campaign on the politically volatile issue, he is not pushing wary Republicans
to act on it before the election.
"It's a subject of such great sensitivity and broad political interest that we need
to get the political debate going on it before there's an actual legislative
proposal sent up to the Hill," said Joshua Bolton, Bush's budget director.
Democrats criticized the budget for omitting many likely expenses, saying it
undercut Bush's claim to be serious about reducing the deficit.
"This budget is neither credible nor realistic because it omits so many costly items," said Rep. John M.
Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
On the presidential campaign trail, Bush's Democratic rivals portrayed his budget as an advertisement
for why voters should not reelect him.
"George W. Bush comes out of the White House to deliver his budget, and once again, all of America
falls in a deep, dark shadow of deficit," said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. "We can't afford
another four years of the same destructive fiscal leadership."
Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark said it laid bare Bush's priorities: "Tax cuts for the rich and tough luck
for everyone else."
Bush's proposals could be substantially revised as Congress writes its budget this spring and
implements it with spending and tax bills.
Bush portrayed this budget, like his last two, as driven by the exigencies of the war in Iraq and the
struggle against terrorism.
"Our nation remains at war," Bush said. "This nation has committed itself to the long war against terror."
Although he has argued in previous years that balancing the budget should not be a top priority while
the nation is at war and in a recession, he is now putting more emphasis on reducing the deficit, which
he projects will peak this year at $521 billion.
His budget estimates that his policies will bring the deficit down to $364 billion in 2005 and $237 billion
by 2009. The deficit as measured as a share of the economy — a yardstick that many economists say
is a more significant gauge of the deficit's effect — would drop from 4.5% of the gross domestic
product in 2004 to 1.6% in 2009.
The administration expects the deficit to drop in part because of increased revenue from an improving
economy. The budget also calls for cuts that would come almost entirely from "discretionary" spending
— programs whose budgets are controlled by Congress in appropriations bills.
But that is less than one-fifth of the federal budget, the rest flowing through "entitlement" programs such
as Medicare and Social Security.
Even some Republicans are bridling at Bush's focus on the discretionary programs. They warn that
freezing that small part of the budget will do little to reduce the deficit.
"While I am dedicated to developing fiscally conservative budgets, no one should expect significant
deficit reduction as a result of austere non-defense discretionary spending limits," said House
Appropriations Chairman C.W. "Bill" Young (R-Fla.). "The numbers simply do not add up."
Although the centerpiece of last year's $2.2-trillion budget plan was a big tax cut to stimulate the
economy, this year's budget includes little more than retreads of past proposals that have languished in
Congress.
The president's top priority is to permanently extend most of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Bush also
is recycling proposals to increase tax incentives for savings.
In setting spending policy, Bush has made room for increases in his top priorities — defense, homeland
security and education — while squeezing other areas. Six of the Cabinet's 15 departments would see
their budgets cut, with Agriculture taking the biggest hit:
• Defense: The Pentagon would be the big winner if Congress approves Bush's request to boost
defense spending by 7% to $401.7 billion. That would be the seventh straight year of defense budget
increases, a string unseen since the end of World War II.
And more money is on the way because the budget does not include funds for continuing military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pentagon officials said it could cost more than $50 billion more if
troops remain there in force. They expect to send a supplemental budget request to Congress early in
2005.
• Homeland Security: Programs across the government would see a $6 billion-increase to $47.4
billion. That includes increased spending on intelligence, technology, border protection and bioterrorism
preparedness.
The budget would overhaul and cut spending for programs that deliver aid to state and local law
enforcement agencies. The principal local aid programs would be reduced from $4.4 billion to $3.6
billion. However, the budget would restructure the program to provide a 60% increase in aid to highly
populated areas such as Southern California.
The Justice Department would also get a big increase for anti-terror programs. But that would be
partially offset by proposed cuts in other programs that are popular with members of Congress,
including grants for community-oriented policing programs.
• Education: The department would receive a 3% increase — to $57.3 billion — under Bush's
budget, the biggest boost for a Cabinet department not handling security issues. That includes $1 billion
in increases for programs aiding disadvantaged and handicapped students.
• Space: In keeping with Bush's vow to reinvigorate America's space program, NASA's budget would
increase nearly 6%, most of it aimed at his long-term plan to build a base on the moon and explore
Mars.
The money would be gradually shifted from programs in Earth orbit such as the space shuttle, which is
scheduled to be retired at the end of the decade.
• Environment: The Environmental Protection Agency is targeted for one of the largest cuts of any
agency — $606 million, or 7% of its budget — most of it aimed at water quality programs.
WHAT A SHOCK>>>>>NOT SUPPORTING OUR ENVIRONMENT!
The largest single cut — $492 million — would come from money for sewage treatment plants.
Congress has rejected past Bush efforts to cut water-quality programs.
• Health and Human Services: Programs to promote marriage and sexual abstinence are among the
biggest winners in the department's budget proposal. Funding for abstinence-only sex education would
be doubled to $270 million; a new $50-million grant program for faith-based organizations would
promote "responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage," and $120 million would be devoted to
research and pilot projects designed to promote marriage and stable families among low-income
Americans. CHURCH AND STATE??????????
The Food and Drug Administration would spend an additional $60 million to protect the nation's food
supply from natural and terrorism-related pathogens. An additional $8 million would be devoted to
efforts to prevent mad cow disease.
The budget also calls for tax credits and tax-free savings accounts to expand the availability of
healthcare and make health insurance more affordable. The administration's 10-year, $70-billion
proposal for refundable health insurance tax credits is $19 billion lower than last year's proposal.
* |
