Bush Finally Gets It...

[otterinbham 0]

Seven long years of feeding the Federal bureaucracy and adding new entitlement programs. Now he wakes up to the economic reality of an oversized government. What an idiot.

========

Official: Bush's 2009 budget to be tight

By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer

24 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush's 2009 budget will virtually freeze most domestic programs and seek nearly $200 billion in savings from federal health care programs, a senior administration official said Thursday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Overall, the Bush budget will exceed $3 trillion, this official said. The deficit is expected to reach about $400 billion for this year and next.

Bush on Monday will present his proposed budget for the new fiscal year to Congress, where it's unlikely to gain much traction in the midst of a presidential campaign. The president has promised a plan that would erase the budget deficit by 2012 if his policies are followed.

To that end, Bush will propose nearly $178 billion in savings from Medicare over five years_ nearly triple what he proposed last year. Much of the savings would come from freezing reimbursement rates for most health care providers for three years. An additional $17 billion would come from the Medicaid program, the state-federal partnership that provides health coverage to the poor.

The budget for most domestic programs funded by Congress will look similar to last year's, according to the official, from the Office of Management and Budget.

"It's a very small increase," he said. "Very small."

A second administration official said domestic discretionary spending would increase by less than 1 percent under Bush's proposal.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the budget has not yet been released

In his State of the Union address Monday, Bush said his budget envisioned a surplus in 2012. "American families have to balance their budgets, and so should their government," he said.

The federal government is expected to spend about $650 billion on Medicare and Medicaid in 2008. It represents more than $1 out of every $5 spent by the federal government.

The OMB official said the president views the budget as a final opportunity to slow the growth of entitlement programs but recognizes that Congress probably won't go along.

He said spending on Medicare would increase under Bush's new budget, but not as quickly as had been expected. "Medicare will grow at 5 percent. It just won't grow over 7 percent," he said.

Savings also would come by charging wealthier people higher monthly premiums for Medicare's drug program.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said the Bush budget would project the 10-year cost of the program, from 2008 to 2017, at $915 billion. That's $117 billion less than what had been forecast last summer. The agency attributed the lower estimate to smaller increases in the cost of medicines, and better deals negotiated between insurers and drug manufacturers.

The agency said 25.4 million people were now enrolled in a Medicare drug plan.

Bush last year asked Congress for nearly $65 billion in Medicare savings over five years. Congress refused to go along.

Independent experts have warned that the government needs to address the rising cost of health care for businesses to stay competitive and for the government to be able to pay for other important programs in the decades ahead.

"In fact, if there is one thing that could bankrupt America, it's runaway health care costs. We must not allow that to happen," David M. Walker, the U.S. comptroller general, told lawmakers Tuesday during a congressional hearing.

But Democrats said Bush's budget targets the wrong health care providers for cuts. They said insurers subsidized to provide Medicare coverage are being overpaid.

"The president is proposing to once again slash health care coverage for seniors and low-income working Americans," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said. "The president's cuts are exactly the wrong medicine when the cost of health care and the number of uninsured continue to rise and families are feeling economically insecure."

Health care providers said the president's recommendations would make it harder for them to meet expenses, which would continue to rise as a result of inflation, even as their reimbursement rates were frozen.

"That level of reduction is so outrageous that it will be summarily rejected by members of both parties in Congress," said Tom Nickels, senior vice president of federal relations for the American Hospital Association. "I don't think it will be taken seriously."

[Auburn85 432]

ugh, it looks very hypocritical and he's well deserved of that name for this issue.

too bad he didn't wake up a couple of years sooner. the final nail was allowing the perscription drug act into the mix. We could go on, but I'll stop with the bridge to nowhere. While I'm against both the Perscription drug Act and the expansion of SCHIP, he didn't do himself any favors by continually vetoing the SCHIP bill because it was for less funding that the Drug Act.

very few and congress either don't get or don't care about our budget deficit and our trade deficit .

[otterinbham 0]

Speaking of govern fiscal responsibility, here's a gem from The Onion.

Super Monkey Collider Loses Funding

Controversial Experiment Comes To An End

OCTOBER 22, 1996 | ISSUE 30•11

Congress voted Monday to cut federal funding for the superconducting monkey collider, a controversial experiment which has cost taxpayers an estimated $7.6 billion a year since its creation in 1983.

ENLARGE IMAGE

Monkeys relax in the main hallway of the abandoned collider, which, if successful, would have smashed the primates together at near-light speeds.

The collider, which was to be built within a 45-mile-long circular tunnel, would accelerate monkeys to near-light speeds before smashing them together. Scientists insist the collider is an important step toward understanding the universe, because no one can yet say for certain what kind of noises monkeys would make if collided at those high speeds.

"It could be a thump, a splat, or maybe even a sound that hasn't yet been heard by human ears," said project head Dr. Eric Reed Friday, in an impassioned plea to Congress. "How are we supposed to understand things like the atom or the nature of gravity if we don't even know what colliding monkeys sound like?"

But Congress, under heavy pressure from the powerful monkey rights lobby, decided that money being spent on the monkey collider would be put to better use in other areas of government. Now, with funding cut off, the future of our nation's monkey collision program looks bleak.

Congress began funding the monkey collider in 1983, after Reed convinced lawmakers that the U.S. was lagging behind the Soviet Union in monkey-colliding technology. Funds were quickly allocated so that Reed could spend a week procuring monkeys on Florida's beautiful Captiva Island. Though Reed returned with a great tan and a beautiful young fiancee, he reported that there were no monkeys to be found on the sunny Gulf Coast island. Congress funded subsequent trips to the Cayman Islands, Bora Bora and Cancun, but these searches also yielded negative results.

Two years passed without a single monkey being procured, and Congress was close to cutting the project's funding. It was then that Reed got the idea to utilize monkeys already being bred in captivity. The Congressional Subcommittee for Scientific Investigation was enthralled by the idea of watching caged monkeys copulate, and increased funding by 40 percent.

With a steady supply of monkeys ensured, construction of the monkey collider began on a scenic Colorado site. Despite environmental pressure, a mountain was levelled to facilitate construction of the seven-mile-wide complex. Huge underground tunnels were dug, at a cost of billions of dollars and 17 lives. Money left over was used to build resort homes, spas and video arcades for Reed, his colleagues and several Congressmen.

Construction of the collider's acceleration mechanism was delayed for years, as scientists couldn't decide how to get the monkeys up to smashing speed. Last month, it was finally decided that the collider would employ a system in which the monkeys run through the tunnels chasing holographic projections of bananas. "Monkeys love bananas," Reed said, "and they're willing to run extremely fast to get them."

But now it seems the acceleration mechanism may never be built. With the monkey collider placed on indefinite hold, the huge research facility in Colorado lies dormant.

To keep the space from going to waste, Congress Monday voted to convert the empty underground tunnel into a federally funded drag-racing track. The track is expected to create hundreds of jobs in the form of pit crews and concessions workers, and will allow President Clinton to impress important foreign dignitaries with America's wheelie technology.

Despite this promising alternate plan, most involved with the monkey collider project feel the sudden cuts in funding are inexcusable. "It is a travesty of science," Reed said. "I remember the joy I felt in college when I would launch monkeys at one another with big rubber bands, and this project would have been even more enlightening."

[LegalEagle 22]

So, if I read him correctly, Bush says, "[G]et me out of the White House, turn Congress over to the Democrats, and it will only be a few short years until we balance the budget." By George, I think he's on to something!

[otterinbham 0]

So, if I read him correctly, Bush says, "[G]et me out of the White House, turn Congress over to the Democrats, and it will only be a few short years until we balance the budget." By George, I think he's on to something!

Ha. That would be akin to one person at an AA meeting saying to another, "Hey, would you do me a favor and watch this bottle of Wild Turkey for me?"

[LegalEagle 22]

So, if I read him correctly, Bush says, "[G]et me out of the White House, turn Congress over to the Democrats, and it will only be a few short years until we balance the budget." By George, I think he's on to something!

Ha. That would be akin to one person at an AA meeting saying to another, "Hey, would you do me a favor and watch this bottle of Wild Turkey for me?"

I don't mind at all. "Gobble, Gobble, Gobble!" Mmmm, Wild Turkey

[Auburn85 432]

So, if I read him correctly, Bush says, "[G]et me out of the White House, turn Congress over to the Democrats, and it will only be a few short years until we balance the budget." By George, I think he's on to something!

HA

I laugh, but I'm scared. Despite having a budget deficit and an enormous trade deficit, I've lost track of all the programs and promises Obama and Clinton have offered. Feel free to add ones I missed:

Universal Healthcare

Universal Pre-K

Increase Educational Spending (more than Bush did?!)

Increase the size of Military (but not to fight anyone)

that's just a few off the top of my head

yet, we have this huge deficit. Remember, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire only covers the healthcare; not all of this.

[LegalEagle 22]

So, if I read him correctly, Bush says, "[G]et me out of the White House, turn Congress over to the Democrats, and it will only be a few short years until we balance the budget." By George, I think he's on to something!

HA

I laugh, but I'm scared. Despite having a budget deficit and an enormous trade deficit, I've lost track of all the programs and promises Obama and Clinton have offered. Feel free to add ones I missed:

Universal Healthcare

Universal Pre-K

Increase Educational Spending (more than Bush did?!)

Increase the size of Military (but not to fight anyone)

that's just a few off the top of my head

yet, we have this huge deficit. Remember, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire only covers the healthcare; not all of this.

Read a little closer, "my friend." I didn't say anything about putting a Democrat in the White House.

And, you left off the savings we'll get from waving the white flag over Iraq and bringing our troops home.

[AFTiger 282]

So, if I read him correctly, Bush says, "[G]et me out of the White House, turn Congress over to the Democrats, and it will only be a few short years until we balance the budget." By George, I think he's on to something!

HA

I laugh, but I'm scared. Despite having a budget deficit and an enormous trade deficit, I've lost track of all the programs and promises Obama and Clinton have offered. Feel free to add ones I missed:

Universal Healthcare

Universal Pre-K

Increase Educational Spending (more than Bush did?!)

Increase the size of Military (but not to fight anyone)

that's just a few off the top of my head

yet, we have this huge deficit. Remember, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire only covers the healthcare; not all of this.

Read a little closer, "my friend." I didn't say anything about putting a Democrat in the White House.

And, you left off the savings we'll get from waving the white flag over Iraq and bringing our troops home.

There will not be any savings . The grounding of the fleet of F-15s has highlighted the neglect of the fighter force by the Bush administration and Congress. The need to upgrade is urgent. In addition the surrender of Iraq to terrorists will expand the war worldwide. The cost of the attack on the WTC was estimated to be in the trillions of dollars and the next will be even more expensive.

The cost of surrender will be incredible!

[LegalEagle 22]

[

There will not be any savings . The grounding of the fleet of F-15s has highlighted the neglect of the fighter force by the Bush administration and Congress. The need to upgrade is urgent. In addition the surrender of Iraq to terrorists will expand the war worldwide. The cost of the attack on the WTC was estimated to be in the trillions of dollars and the next will be even more expensive.

The cost of surrender will be incredible!

Where do you get your estimate?

It would not be in the trillions had we not invaded Iraq w/o cause.

There would be no threat of terrorist in Iraq had we not invaded and occupied their country.

Don't we have WMD and a history of dropping nuclear bombs? Should we be invaded on those facts?

Isn't it true that no F-15 has ever been shot down in combat by another plane? (or at all?) Yet we are replacing it with much more expensive planes, and we will be giving our F-15s away to our "friends" for pennies on the dollar.

I agree with you on the shape of our military equipment. Can you imagine how much we will have to spend to recondition and/or replace the equipment we have sent to Iraq? It will be very expensive to get our military back to where it was before 911, much less to improve on it.

Hey, just a little ramble. . .

[AFTiger 282]

Where do you get your estimate?

It would not be in the trillions had we not invaded Iraq w/o cause.

There would be no threat of terrorist in Iraq had we not invaded and occupied their country.

Don't we have WMD and a history of dropping nuclear bombs? Should we be invaded on those facts?

Isn't it true that no F-15 has ever been shot down in combat by another plane? (or at all?) Yet we are replacing it with much more expensive planes, and we will be giving our F-15s away to our "friends" for pennies on the dollar.

I agree with you on the shape of our military equipment. Can you imagine how much we will have to spend to recondition and/or replace the equipment we have sent to Iraq? It will be very expensive to get our military back to where it was before 911, much less to improve on it.

Hey, just a little ramble. . .

I think that with the loss of the WTC buildings, the loss of income and layoffs in the airlines, the loss of businness in the markets, the loss of 3000 people, a trillion dollars is reasonable.

How much did the September 11 terrorist attack cost America?

Counting the value of lives lost as well as property damage and lost production of goods and services, losses already exceed $100 billion. Including the loss in stock market wealth -- the market's own estimate arising from expectations of lower corporate profits and higher discount rates for economic volatility -- the price tag approaches $2 trillion.

Among the big-ticket items:

The loss of four civilian aircraft valued at $385 million.

The destruction of major buildings in the World Trade Center with a replacement cost of from $3 billion to $4.5 billion.

Damage to a portion of the Pentagon: up to $1 billion.

Cleanup costs: $1.3 billion.

Property and infrastructure damage: $10 billion to $13 billion.

Federal emergency funds (heightened airport security, sky marshals, government takeover of airport security, retrofitting aircraft with anti-terrorist devices, cost of operations in Afghanistan): $40 billion.

Direct job losses amounted to 83,000, with $17 billion in lost wages.

The amount of damaged or unrecoverable property hit $21.8 billion.

Losses to the city of New York (lost jobs, lost taxes, damage to infrastructure, cleaning): $95 billion.

Losses to the insurance industry: $40 billion.

Loss of air traffic revenue: $10 billion.

Fall of global markets: incalculable.

Link

The F-15 is approaching 40 years and is now old technology. The entire fleet was grounded after a catastrophic failure of the airframe on one F-15 Flight. Hell, the main computer on that thing is a 286 chip.

From Air Force magazine

January 2008, Vol. 91, No. 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Robert S. Dudney, Editor in Chief

Catastrophic Failure

Washington’s apathy toward USAF’s geriatric fleet comes close to outright negligence.

It was a chilling event. The aged F-15C, flying a peacetime mission, broke up without warning, even though the aircraft had not been violently maneuvering. The pilot was forced to eject at high speed.

These words do not refer to the recent F-15 crackup above Missouri (see “Washington Watch: The F-15 Incident,” p. 8). No, the mishap spoken of here occurred in 2002 over the Gulf of Mexico. The doomed F-15C was flying at 24,000 feet when part of its tail broke off. Maj. James A. Duricy punched out at 900 mph and was killed. Investigators said the tail had corroded over the years. The fighter had gotten old.

That, please note, was six years ago. The Nov. 2 mishap in Missouri might be sobering—USAF cited a “catastrophic structural failure” and grounded many F-15s—but it certainly was not new. USAF has been warning about aging aircraft for many years.

Evidently, the warnings haven’t registered. National leaders—be they in the White House, Defense Department, or Congress—have failed to address the issue in any truly definitive way. Indeed, Washington’s apathy toward USAF’s geriatric fleet comes close to outright negligence.

The Secretary of the Air Force, Michael W. Wynne, reports the average age of an Air Force aircraft in 1973 was eight years but today is 24 years and headed toward 26.5 years in 2012. The problem goes well beyond the F-15 to include most of the major aircraft types—bombers, tankers, and transports no less than fighters.

USAF’s 505 KC-135 refueling tankers average more than 46 years of age. Many C-130 transports are grounded due to poor reliability and concern for their in-flight safety. C-5A cargo aircraft have low availability because of frequent maintenance.

The roots of the problem are many and tangled, but no one doubts that things began to go off the rails during the so-called “procurement holiday” of the 1990s.

Problems first emerged in the 1989-93 presidency of George H. W. Bush. In his four years as Pentagon chief, Dick Cheney—now Vice President Cheney—curtailed USAF’s F-15 program, postponed the F-22 fighter, terminated the B-2 bomber at only 20 aircraft, and cut the C-17 airlifter.

A get-well aircraft modernization was supposed to begin in the late 1990s, but it was again delayed by a widespread post-Cold War desire to reap a “peace dividend” by cutting defense spending. The Clinton Administration bought a few F-15s and F-16s for attrition reserve, but it also reduced the planned F-22 program from 648 to 339 aircraft and further delayed it.

When President George W. Bush arrived in 2001, USAF was poised for a long-deferred fleet recapitalization. Then, Bush’s Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, enamored of military transformation, restrained aircraft modernization once more. After the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began to soak up defense dollars.

Today, more than 800 aircraft—14 percent of the USAF fleet—are grounded or operating under various flight restrictions. Older fighters in the near future won’t be up to fighting modern air defenses or modern fighters.

The Air Force is “going out of business,” said Wynne. He added, “At some time in the future, [aircraft] will simply rust out, age out, fall out of the sky.” Indeed, it is already happening.

No one can claim there was not fair warning of the danger. As far back as 1996, Gen. Ronald R. Fogleman, USAF Chief of Staff, noted “the term ‘aging aircraft’ takes on a new significance when [you are] keeping fighters in the inventory 25 to 30 years.”

In 1999, Gen. Richard E. Hawley, head of Air Combat Command, observed that, “We are flying the oldest fleet of airplanes that the Air Force has ever operated. ... Old airplanes break in new ways. ... The older it gets, the less predictable it gets.”

Fogleman’s successor, Gen. Michael E. Ryan, in 2000 expressed deep concern about fleet age and the high cost of finding the proper kinds of spare parts in sufficient numbers to support readiness.

In 2005, near the end of his tour as Chief of Staff, Gen. John P. Jumper warned, “The thing that ... worries me the most is the [stunted] recapitalization of our force. ... We are now facing problems with airplanes that we have never seen before.”

What is to be done? Some Air Force officials suggest that, at this late stage, the service cannot truly solve the problem but rather engage in damage limitation. This would entail two basic moves, both of which are simple but not easy. They are:

Expand procurement. Top Air Force officials have declared that, to properly fund the hardware accounts, service spending must rise by at least $20 billion per year for at least the next six years—and probably for longer than that. New aircraft would enter the inventory at an accelerated pace.

Gen. T. Michael Moseley, USAF Chief of Staff, has made replacing the aged KC-135 tanker his highest priority. USAF seeks 381 F-22s—not the 183 that has been allowed by the Pentagon—and 1,763 F-35s. These fighters would replace many old F-15s, F-16s, F-117s, and A-10s.

Dump old airplanes. Keeping the old, flying clunkers is a money-burner, given their high maintenance and upgrade costs. The Air Force wants to mothball more of the old B-52 bombers, KC-135E tankers, and C-130E lifters.

This will require the cooperation of Congress which, mostly for parochial reasons, barred many such retirements from local bases. Moseley said such restrictions force him to retain airplanes that can neither fly nor fight but which nevertheless require regular and expensive upkeep.

In both areas, the Air Force will have to do some high-stepping. There is no assurance of success even then.

Without some dramatic change in Washington, USAF may have no choice but to retrench, lower its expectations, and accept higher risk in meeting its obligations. Then, the Air Force really would be going out of business, at least in the sense to which we all have become accustomed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright Air Force Association. All rights reserved.

Your arguments about the more expensive airplane are the same used against every replace aircraft in the inventory including the F-16 and F15.

Your comments about the lack of terrorists in Iraq are just nonsense. They were there and after the invasion Iraq became central in the war. Al Qada made it their main front so whether Iraq or Afghanistan, the terrosts were our target and the war is going well for us now. The WMD question has several views. CBS 60 Minutes revealed that Iraq's capability was in its ability to recontitute and with the UN expelled they were open and up to the task. see here

As far as our use of nuclear weapons in WWII, they ended the war, prevented the resisted invasion of the Japanese mainland and the deaths of thousands of Allied soldiers. My father was about to ship out to be a part of that invasion force and Shug was already a survivor of Okinawa and ready to land in Japan. So don't give me that crap.

The military was in good shape after Gulf 1 but after the peace dividends and Clinton's reorganization of government, the military was decimated and would have required massive amounts of funding anyway to undo the damage.

I hope you understand what I have said , I don't try engage tuthers because their minds are seriously warped and incapable of understanding the world.