You call this guy a conservative?

[TexasTiger 13,017]

The notion that this party is fiscally conservative is another delusion. Let it go. The truth will set you free.

Despite Proposed Cuts, Bush Budget Is Bigger

By Janet Hook, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Even as President Bush proposes deep cuts in healthcare, farm subsidies and other domestic programs, his new budget makes one thing clear about the legacy of his first term in the White House: The era of big government is back.

Bush's $2.6-trillion budget for 2006, if approved by Congress, would be more than one-third bigger than the budget he inherited four years ago. It is a monument to how much Republicans' guiding fiscal philosophy has changed over the 10 years since the GOP "Contract With America" called for a balanced budget and abolition of entire Cabinet agencies.

   

 No longer are Republicans arguing with Democrats about whether government should be big or small. They are at odds over what kind of big government the United States should have.

"This Republican Party is much less fiscally conservative than the one that took Congress 10 years ago," said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation. "That Congress believed in eliminating entire departments that weren't justified. You don't hear that these days. I wish we did."

Bush is releasing his budget at a time when many fiscal conservatives in his party are dismayed by how much he allowed federal spending and the deficit to rise during his first term in the White House. This vocal but outnumbered faction of the GOP was furious when Bush in 2003 signed a big increase in federal farm subsidies and pushed Congress to expand Medicare to cover prescription drug benefits.

Bush has moved to placate those critics in this budget by restating his pledge to cut the deficit in half by 2009; by pledging to abolish or cut back spending for 150 programs, and by taking on fast-growing entitlements like farm programs and Medicaid.

Many analysts view those promises with skepticism because Bush in his first term had a disappointing record of confronting Congress on popular spending programs. He is the first president since Martin Van Buren to spend an entire term in the White House without vetoing a single bill.

"This is a promise in which his position so far is not credible," said William A. Niskanen, a former economic advisor to President Reagan and chairman of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "President Bush also promised to reduce the deficit in half last year, but it went up $15 billion."

Much of the deficit growth during Bush's first term was the result of increased Defense and Homeland Security programs after the 9/11 attacks and four rounds of tax cuts.

Bush and fellow Republicans argued for the last three years' budgets that eliminating the deficit had to take a back seat at a time when the country is at war and the economy was sagging. Now that the economy is in better shape and Iraq has elected its own government, the pressure is on Bush to give higher priority to combating the deficit.

However, Bush's budget projections surely understate future deficits because they do not include the cost of three priorities that are at the core of his bid for a second term legacy: ongoing military operations in Iraq; making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent; and overhauling Social Security.

And even where Bush is pushing to reduce spending, analysts say, there may be less there than meets the eye.

Bush is right in saying that his budget is very tight — but only for domestic discretionary programs that make up only 17% of the budget. Those programs would be cut by 1%. But Defense would get an increase of almost 5% — bringing its overall growth to 41% since 2001. Domestic security spending would grow 7% over last year. Medicare is on track to increase by $50 billion.

Bush calls that variation in funding "setting priorities." Democrats say it confirms their worst fears that the deficit that has been run up under Bush will be used only as a pretext for cutting programs favored by Democrats and their constituencies — Amtrak trains that are popular in Democratic states up and down the East Coast; Medicaid programs that serve the poor; job training programs that are backed by labor unions.

"What this president is doing is what Republican presidents and Congresses have been doing for a generation: Using the budget deficit to justify the destruction of programs the American people trust and rely on," said John Lawrence, Democratic staff director of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Democrats will not be alone in resisting Bush's domestic spending cuts. Republicans have joined them in blocking past efforts to abolish popular programs. Of the 65 programs he proposed eliminating last year, Congress approved only five. And Republicans are already squawking.

"Programs like Amtrak, beach replenishment and education funding have so much support in Congress that I believe the funding will be restored," said Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.).

What's more, analysts say that serious progress cannot be made in reducing the deficit and controlling the spending without controlling the entitlement programs like Medicare. Bush does take a whack at curbing farm subsidies, which had been expanded tremendously under a 2003 farm bill that dismantled market-oriented reforms established shortly after Republicans took control of Congress.

Conservatives pleaded with Bush at the time to veto the bill, but he was under heavy pressure from farm belt Republicans not to alienate their constituencies by blocking the measure. For the same political reason, Congress is considered unlikely to undercut farm benefits that are so important to the "red" states that voted for Bush in 2004.

In defending his budget proposals, Bush is offering a rationale far different from the root-and-branch, anti-government rhetoric Republicans used 10 years ago, arguing that the federal government had no business subsidizing education, the arts and other domestic activities. Bush argues that his budget cuts are driven by a managerial interest in eliminating waste, duplication and ineffective programs.

"I fully understand that sometimes it's hard to eliminate a program that sounds good," Bush said today. "The important question that needs to be asked for all constituencies is whether or not the programs achieve a certain result."

That is a far cry from the heated rhetoric Republicans used in 1995, when they first came to power brimming with government slashing fervor. Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La.), the new House Appropriations Committee chairman, brought a machete to his first panel meeting to dramatize his commitment to cutting programs. And 1996 was the only year since Republicans took control of Congress that discretionary spending was cut.

Republicans' commitment to eliminating the deficit, a cornerstone of the Contract With America, also seems a thing of the past. They now argue that the deficit — although it has hit a record in absolute numbers — is manageable because it is not as large as Ronald Reagan's 1983 deficit, when measured as a share of the gross national product.

But Stan Collender, a budget analyst with Financial Dynamics Business Communications, said that amounts to "using the budget failure of one Republican to make the large deficits of another appear to be less troubling."

"President Bush would never admit this, but he has transformed the party into the party of permanent big deficits," said Collender.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...-home-headlines

[AURaptor 1,126]

Make up your mind. He's either a big spender , or making draconian cuts.

Yeah, I know, he's spending FAR too much $, but it's still better than Kerry. But what kills me is how Libs talk out of both sides of their mouths... for W spending 'too much ', and then when he makes cuts. Can't have it both ways. Sorry. When y'all play that game, none of your criticisms hold water. And you talk about delusion?

good one.

[TrueBlue72 0]

Raptor, I've come to the conclusion that many times when the liberales whine about "cuts" they are really talking about cutting from how much they would have spent if they controlled the purse strings.

Unfortunately, GWB is not really a fiscal conservative in the traditional sense, and that is made worse by the enormous costs associated with the 9/11 attacks and aftermath. It is a miracle that our economy has survived as well as it has through that ordeal. If not for those costs, the deficit would likely be just as GWB had promised. But according to the liberales, GWB was responsible for letting 9/11 happen and should have known its effects on the economy before he made those promises. And I suppose in a way, he should have known...... after 8 years of appeasement and ignoring of the signs by the Clintonistas, something like that was bound to happen.

Liberals are like the bashers on the football board; they never present viable answers to problems, but whine and complain about every decision that GWB and the republicans make. It is a lot easier to be the opposition party and be responsible for nothing but taking pot shots at those who actually make the decisions.

[Auburn85 432]

When in doubt, raise taxes

[TexasTiger 13,017]

I actually support the balanced budget ammendment that the 1994 Contract with America Republicans promised. They control all branches of government and could pass it, but they don't. They'd rather work up the wing nuts on gay marriage. Unfortunately, all those promises were just marketing ploys to get control.

You can spend too much and make cuts. If your making drastic cuts and still producing the biggest budget of all time, there's a problem. You pay your bills, plan and simple. An old conservative value. You don't spend more than you take in. You take out loans for major investments, not day-to-day expenses. When your interest payments are one of your major expenses, that is gross mismanagement. I'm for a balanced budget, whatever combination of taxes and spending cuts that takes that the President can sell to the American public. Good management is about tough decisions. Leadership is about selling those decisions and building support. This President wouldn't veto a bill or make any major cuts in spending until he got elected.

You think we can borrow and borrow without consequence? Just one more delusion. 25 years ago I just never dreamed it would be a "conservative" delusion. Now you wil probably never see another balanced budget on the federal level in your lifetime. That's the Bush legacy.

[WarTim 3,457]

Make up your mind. He's either a big spender , or making draconian cuts.

Yeah, I know, he's spending FAR too much $, but it's still better than Kerry.  But what kills me is how Libs talk out of both sides of  their mouths... for W spending 'too much ', and then when he makes cuts. Can't have it both ways. Sorry.  When y'all play that game, none of your criticisms hold water. And you talk about delusion?

good one.

145091[/snapback]

Kinda' like hitlary RUNNING on over to the middle and thinking that America is so stupid as to forget that she and her wife are socialist.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

Make up your mind. He's either a big spender , or making draconian cuts.

Yeah, I know, he's spending FAR too much $, but it's still better than Kerry.  But what kills me is how Libs talk out of both sides of  their mouths... for W spending 'too much ', and then when he makes cuts. Can't have it both ways. Sorry.  When y'all play that game, none of your criticisms hold water. And you talk about delusion?

good one.

145091[/snapback]

Kinda' like hitlary RUNNING on over to the middle and thinking that America is so stupid as to forget that she and her wife are socialist.

145211[/snapback]

More in depth analysis from War Tim!

[CarolinaTiger 0]

c'mon, TT...liberals aren't supposed to like labels.

it's the evil right-wingers that do the labeling.

but, if it makes you feel any better:

W is not a conservative.

whew! i feel free already!!!! maybe now you can vote for him, TT!!!!

go W!!!!

ct

[mcgufcm 4,107]

oh he's a conservative, just not conservative in any ways that are important to me. he's a hyper conservative when it comes to moral issues which he uses to blind classic conservatives while he over spends and under funds all at the same time. if an old school conservative looked at the fiscal plans of clinton and bush... he'd vote for clinton. period.

bush claimed we would leave no child behind, then he made cuts to the federal spending compared to clinton's last budget. effectively screwing the system that both parties thought was important enough to push through congress. that's my lasting memory of this admin. the lack of educational improvement.

my favorite part is how we rack up debt, cut taxes, and under report our budget all at the same time. how in the world could this budget not at least include footnotes on the additional cost of social security reform when that is the primary domestic goal of the admin. this fiscal year? if the bush budget was published by a company, they'd be getting pounded for misrepresentation on financial information right now. AND it doesn't include the total costs of two ongoing wars??? how does that work out?

the proof of that kind of misleading budget reporting will be in the deficit pudding. bush claims that this new budget will actually reduce the deficit by (off the top of my head) about 60 billion dollars. i'll bet a dollar with anyone here that we actually have a deficit this year when all is said and done. anyone.

there are plenty of things you could do to improve the budget situation: reform the tax cuts to take away most of the cuts from people in the top 1%. that's a lot of cash going out to people who don't need and most likely don't spend it (bush himself claimed that this economy was fueled by the middle class... those guys are far from it). make cuts in military r&d. i know this would go over with most conservatives like a pregnant pole vaulter, but honestly, anyone think we couldn't maintain the most advanced military in the world with less r&d? it's like playing with a 100 point lead... you don't have to keep scoring right now. stuff like that. obviously, i don't have specifics in mind right now, but the point is: spend money within your borders, give less money back to people (i'll be joining the work force this year, and i wouldn't have a problem paying more taxes than i currently will... especially in alabama where we vote down tax increases every year while our k-12 and higher ed representatives have to campaign against each other for who gets cut less), and cut back on new military operation spending (that doesn't include funds for the troops already in the field).

[Auburn85 432]

oh he's a conservative, just not conservative in any ways that are important to me. he's a hyper conservative when it comes to moral issues which he uses to blind classic conservatives while he over spends and under funds all at the same time. if an old school conservative looked at the fiscal plans of clinton and bush... he'd vote for clinton. period.

bush claimed we would leave no child behind, then he made cuts to the federal spending compared to clinton's last budget. effectively screwing the system that both parties thought was important enough to push through congress. that's my lasting memory of this admin. the lack of educational improvement.

my favorite part is how we rack up debt, cut taxes, and under report our budget all at the same time. how in the world could this budget not at least include footnotes on the additional cost of social security reform when that is the primary domestic goal of the admin. this fiscal year? if the bush budget was published by a company, they'd be getting pounded for misrepresentation on financial information right now. AND it doesn't include the total costs of two ongoing wars??? how does that work out?

the proof of that kind of misleading budget reporting will be in the deficit pudding. bush claims that this new budget will actually reduce the deficit by (off the top of my head) about 60 billion dollars. i'll bet a dollar with anyone here that we actually have a deficit this year when all is said and done. anyone.

there are plenty of things you could do to improve the budget situation: reform the tax cuts to take away most of the cuts from people in the top 1%. that's a lot of cash going out to people who don't need and most likely don't spend it (bush himself claimed that this economy was fueled by the middle class... those guys are far from it). make cuts in military r&d. i know this would go over with most conservatives like a pregnant pole vaulter, but honestly, anyone think we couldn't maintain the most advanced military in the world with less r&d? it's like playing with a 100 point lead... you don't have to keep scoring right now. stuff like that. obviously, i don't have specifics in mind right now, but the point is: spend money within your borders, give less money back to people (i'll be joining the work force this year, and i wouldn't have a problem paying more taxes than i currently will... especially in alabama where we vote down tax increases every year while our k-12 and higher ed representatives have to campaign against each other for who gets cut less), and cut back on new military operation spending (that doesn't include funds for the troops already in the field).

145307[/snapback]

If that 1% doesn't need the money , why don't they send it back? You can fill out a particular form and send the money back.

Alabama in previous years has struggled with budget problems, but this year, everything in the Education Budget was funded FULLY. Plus teachers can expect at least a 4% raise too.

And many some of us Alabamaians wouldn't be against particular tax increases if we had proof of accountability.

And it looks like our stater is slowly heading in the right direction with no new taxes. Like I said previously , a $150 million surplus in the education budget.

The deficitlast year in the general fund was around $500 million, now it's around $250 million.

And as far as paying more taxes.. ask your employer to take out more state and federal taxes. Did you know that you can do that?

The Alabama government can CUT SOME of the superintendents pay. Again, I 'm not questioning their work habits, but if there's a crisis. Carlinda Purcell can take a $10,000 pay cut and will still be making more than $125,000. She currently makes around $160,000. It won't solve the financial problem, but it would raise the moral of the system, including the teachers and the taxpayers.

[japantiger 4,051]

A few problems with the original article. The deficit had nothing to do with either Iraq spending or tax cuts. Total impact in $$ the last two years for both is less than $100B.

The issue was 1) recession after 90's bubble 2) 9/11 impact on the economy 3) both mean lower economic growth and lower tax revenues than planned 4) to fund huge spending growth each year

The tax cuts were aimed at getting economic growth back and that has been successful. However, we still spend beyond our means. Solution, hold spending flat for one year; and there would be no deficit. The cuts that everyone talks about are only cuts in "democratic" or "media" math. That is, if I want to increase spending on my pet projects 10%; and you only want to increase them 4%, you are cutting my projects 6%. Real math (yes, there is a right/wrong answer here for the relativists reading this) is a 4% increase in spending.

Our problem is we cannot stand to hold our spending increases only to real priorities (not the National Endowment for the Arts and the like) and keep them in line with how much tax $$ we take out of our citizens pockets (taxes, there's no such thing as "revenue" for a government. Governments don't produce anything; they take taxes from citizens). Don't spend on crap projects more than you take from me and my family and we won't run deficits.

[TexasTiger 13,017]

A few problems with the original article.  The deficit had nothing to do with either Iraq spending or tax cuts.  Total impact in $$ the last two years for both is less than $100B. 

The issue was 1) recession after 90's bubble 2) 9/11 impact on the economy 3) both mean lower economic growth and lower tax revenues than planned  4) to fund huge spending growth each year

The tax cuts were aimed at getting economic growth back and that has been successful.  However, we still spend beyond our means.  Solution, hold spending flat for one year; and there would be no deficit.  The cuts that everyone talks about are only cuts in "democratic" or "media" math.  That is, if I want to increase spending on my pet projects 10%; and you only want to increase them 4%, you are cutting my projects 6%.  Real math (yes, there is a right/wrong answer here for the relativists reading this) is a 4% increase in spending. 

Our problem is we cannot stand to hold our spending increases only to real priorities (not the National Endowment for the Arts and the like) and keep them in line with how much tax  $$ we take out of our citizens pockets (taxes, there's no such thing as "revenue" for a government.  Governments don't produce anything; they take taxes from citizens).  Don't spend on crap projects more than you take from me and my family and we won't run deficits.

145865[/snapback]

The deficit had nothing to do with either Iraq spending or tax cuts.

There are a few myths in your argument. Over 200 Billion and counting for the Iraq war and you say it has NOTHING to do with the deficit?

As I posted in another thread:

The Bush administration's newly released budget projections reveal an anticipated budget deficit of $455 billion for the current fiscal year, up another $151 billion since February. Supporters and critics of the administration are tripping over themselves to blame the deficit on tax cuts, the war, and a slow economy. But the fact is we have mounting deficits because George W. Bush is the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. One could say that he has become the "Mother of All Big Spenders."

The new estimates show that, under Bush, total outlays will have risen $408 billion in just three years to $2.272 trillion: an enormous increase in federal spending of 22 percent. Administration officials privately admit that spending is too high. Yet they argue that deficits are appropriate in times of war and recession. So, is it true that the war on terrorism has resulted in an increase in defense spending? Yes. And, is it also true that a slow economy has meant a decreased stream of tax revenues to pay for government? Yes again.

But the real truth is that national defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than ten years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively.

Removing revenue from the budget has nothing to do with the deficit, too?

Tax Revenue Below 2000's Despite Growth in Profits

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

Published: October 8, 2004

WASHINGTON, Oct. 7 - Even after a year of solid economic growth and booming corporate profits, federal income tax revenues were lower in the fiscal year that just ended than in the year before President Bush took office, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

In a sign that Mr. Bush's tax cuts have had a bigger impact on the federal deficit than administration officials have often suggested, personal and corporate income taxes are both lower than they were in 2000 even though personal income and corporate profits are both substantially higher.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/politics/08deficit.html?ex=1108184400&en=a65b6f362376cc77&ei=5070

The real problem are agencies like the National Endowment for the Arts? Do you even know how much money that is? About 121 million. Oppose it on ideological grounds if you want, but that is not why we have a huge deficit. It's a speck in 2.5 trillion dollar budget. Its just the whipping boy for the Right Wing.

Here's how discretionary spending breaks down:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/charts/D...dingFY2004.html

Sure there is a lot of systemic pork in the budget. And you're right that we lack the will and discipline to limit spending to our "priorities". Or at least our "needs." But the problems go much, much deeper.

[Auburn85 432]

You call this guy (Zell Miller) a democrat