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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (10797)	2/3/2006 4:52:39 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541692

They typically call reductions in spending growth "cuts." That's SOP. It's really hard to know what they're talking about but I think that reductions in growth has become the default. Usually news articles aren't too particular about their language. I haven't followed this particular bill at all so I just Googled to find something that expressed reductions in the rate of spending growth. This was the first article Google came up with that expressed it in those terms. Look at the headline and then look at the bolded piece. Bush wins deep cuts in benefit spending By Richard Simon and Joel Havemann Los Angeles Times WASHINGTON – The House on Wednesday approved and sent to the White House a far-reaching bill that will trim the growth of federal benefit programs by more than $39 billion in the next five years – Congress’ first major budget-cutting exercise in almost a decade. The measure squeaked through the Republican-led House by a 216-214 vote and without a single Democrat in favor. The Senate had passed the legislation shortly before Christmas, also with no Democratic support, when Vice President Cheney broke a 50-50 tie. President Bush issued a statement praising the House vote and adding, “I look forward to signing this bill into law.” The 2007 budget he will submit to Congress on Monday, Bush said, “will continue to build on the spending restraint we have achieved.” As much as the measure’s passage was welcomed by Bush, it was perhaps sweeter yet for House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., whose hopes of succeeding former Majority Leader Tom DeLay could have been derailed if he had failed to corral the necessary votes. The leadership vote takes place Thursday. Among its many provisions, the bill will charge higher interest rates on student loans, reduce federal aid to force absent parents to pay child support and impose stricter work requirements on welfare recipients. Republican leaders have portrayed the bill as a critical part of their drive to reduce the federal budget deficit. Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, R-6th, a leader of House conservatives, called the measure “an important first step toward restoring public confidence in the fiscal integrity of our national government.” Yet measured against the budget as a whole, the spending cuts seem mild. Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl said they would reduce total growth in federal benefit programs over the next five years from 39 percent to 38 percent. And even as the House was passing the spending-cut bill, the Senate was debating a $56 billion tax cut that the House had already passed – a combination that would add $16 billion to federal deficits. Democrats condemned budget cuts that focused on programs to benefit the poor even as Republicans planned more tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. “This isn’t about small government,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “This is about small-minded, petty government that does not meet the needs of the American people.” Upon Bush’s signature, the legislation will reauthorize and revamp the welfare law that Congress enacted in 1996 but that expired in 2002. Since then, Congress has extended the program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, with a series of short-term reauthorizations. States will face reductions in federal welfare grants if they cannot meet strict new requirements for moving their welfare recipients into jobs or activities such as job training. The bill’s Medicaid provisions spell bad news for many of the program’s low-income recipients but good news for health insurers and drug companies. The bill could mean that beneficiaries with incomes just above the poverty line will have to pay far more than the current $3 co-payment for many medical services. It will tighten restrictions on elderly persons who transfer assets to family members to qualify for Medicaid. Senate-passed provisions to force insurance companies and drug manufacturers to absorb some of the cuts were dropped by the House-Senate conference committee that wrote the final bill. The deepest cuts – $12.7 billion over five years – were exacted on the government’s student loan programs. fortwayne.com

To: Suma who wrote (10797)	2/3/2006 5:10:42 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541692

I already did link to facts about education spending (federal education spending is up something like 100% under Bush). I assume you realize that entitlement spending is up year after year. If you really doubt that fact and won't take my word for it I can look it up for you. Entitlement spending is the biggest part of federal social spending. The increase in entitlements and education are so large that it would probably be impossible for overall social spending to be cut. But other programs have been increased as well. If you want the direct budget figures they are available online here gpoaccess.gov You have to look at different PDF files for different years and perhaps for different programs. But you can check it out and see that what I'm saying is true. Check the budgets for all social programs since bush came to office. The total is up each year. Most major programs are also up each year. The programs that are not up are smaller than Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (the biggest social programs which are all up), and probably bigger than education (not strictly speaking one program, and not as expensive as social security, but a large category that is up strongly) If you want links to opinion peices that present facts you can try aei.org found at aei.org Check the table. Note this figures are real (i.e. infaltion adjusted) spending changes. They don't include some more recent increases and they don't include entitlements but entitlements have also gone up. Department of Education +67.9% Health and Human Services + 26.5% Housing and Urban Development + 6.7% Vetrens Affairs + 39% International assistance programs +31.1% Every category listed has gone up under Bush in real terms. The only other president on the chart (which starts with LBJ) for which this is true is Clinton but his increases where mostly smaller (although he did increase Dept. of Commerce spending by 96.7% after adjusting for inflation). Federal Spending Soars Under Bush's Watch by Ron Hutcheson commondreams.org WASHINGTON - Three growing entitlement programs consumed nearly half of all federal spending in 2004, and budget analysts expect them to make up an even bigger share in the future. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid accounted for more than $1 trillion in the 2004 budget year, according to the Consolidated Federal Funds Report released Tuesday by the Census Bureau. Overall federal spending was $2.2 trillion, an increase of 5 percent from 2003. “The total federal spending increase is actually down a bit from recent years,” said Gerard Keffer, chief of the Census Bureau’s federal programs branch. “It had been running 6 to 8 percent in the past several years.” For years, Washington has been fighting over how to manage the growth of entitlement programs. Analysts think the fight will continue for years to come... msnbc.msn.com "... What is also disturbing about this administration's budget policies is that "reforms" always seem to cost taxpayers more money. For example, the administration's statement applauds Congress for spending an added $129 million on Medicare appeals, but then asks that the process be "streamlined." Shouldn't a streamlined process save taxpayers money, not cost them more? Similarly, Medicare reform is supposed to be about cutting costs to avert the program's coming financial crisis. In theory, prescription drugs should cut costs by reducing hospital stays. Yet taxpayers are getting walloped with an added $400 billion burden over the next 10 years because of the Medicare drug "reform" plan. We saw the same thing with the president's education reforms. Education Department outlays have ballooned 65 percent in just three years. Now, the administration's policy statement on the appropriation bill urges Congress to "provide the full request" for a superfluous Mentoring of Middle School Students program, which is claimed to help kids make a "successful transition from elementary to secondary school." Since coming to office, the administration has been running a strangely compartmentalized budget policy — letting Americans keep more of their money on the tax side, but steadily building up the welfare state on the spending side. That political strategy won't work much longer because spending is ultimately a taxpayer issue. Higher spending pushes up the deficit and creates a looming threat of higher taxes down the road..." nationalreview.com "...While critics decry billions of dollars of small "pork" projects, the bulk of domestic spending is for major programs. Exhibit A is the expansion of Medicare to include prescription drugs, which President Bush is expected to sign into law Monday. Sold as a $400 billion reform, the real costs could soar past $2 trillion in the second decade, as 76 million baby boomers begin to retire into the system. Conservatives say it's a formula for massive deficits and tax increases in the years to come. Then, there's the $180 billion farm bill, passed just in time for 2002 elections, when farm states determined control of the Senate. It buried out of sight any thought of rolling back the federal system of farm support, which conservatives once pledged to abolish. The president's signature No Child Left Behind Act increased education spending by 33 to 68 percent, depending on how you calculate the numbers... reclaimdemocracy.org Lame Duck, Big Spender Surprise: Bush beats LBJ as federal spendthrift reason.com Hey, Big Spender FDR and Truman made cuts when crises demanded it. Why won't Bush? opinionjournal.com Hey, Big Spender techcentralstation.be