http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=18583
The wealth transfer scheme
Bush's budget uses deficit as excuse for massive transfer of wealth from poor to rich
Geov Parrish
02.18.05
Everyone saw this one coming. But that doesn't make it any better.
President Bush's FY 2006 budget proposal, unveiled in detail last week, is the other shoe dropping.
It's not quite fair to say that this is a budget designed to reduce the deficit. There's still plenty of expansive spending; the Pentagon's budget increases again in this cycle, and pork for favored Republican projects still abounds.
But what it does do is use the deficit, created in four short years by this administration, as an excuse for targeting all the programs Republicans don't like. The Department of Education -- which Republicans once wanted to abolish -- takes a $4.3 billion hit. Money for health care, $1.7 billion in reduced or eliminated programs. $2.5 billion in agriculture. Half a billion in federal housing expenditures. Even aid to local and state law enforcement gets a $1.5 billion reduction. Regulatory agencies from the EPA to the Forest Service will have to make do with less.
Here in the Northwest, the effects will be profound. Congressional delegations are up in arms over a proposal to charge users of the federal Bonneville Power Adaministration market rates for power, rather than the low subsidized rates utility customers currently pay -- effectively an enormous tax increase for the BPA's four-state service area. Federal money for Hanford cleanup is cut. Money for the Puget Sound's pressing transportation needs? Forget about it. And so it goes, for local governments around the country.
More honest conservatives, like Grover Norquist or the Wall Street Journal's editorial page editors, are jubilant over the Bush approach. Bush has used enormous tax cuts, primarily directed toward the wealthy, an expanded federal bureaucracy, largely devoted to corporate welfare, and the costs of post-9-11 militarism, primarily benefiting Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, and other military contractors, to drive up the federal deficit. He is then trying to alleviate that deficit by reducing programs that don't primarily benefit the wealthy: education, health care, housing, environmental protection.
Bush's budget is just as telling for what it omits. Costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- let alone any prospective wars in Iran or Syria or North Korea -- aren't included. Neither are the massive transition costs attached to Bush's plan for partial privatization of Social Security.
In both cases, when the feds spend money, it winds up in very deep pockets -- the military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, banks and Wall Street for Social Security.
Follow the money. This is not fiscal prudence; it is a massive wealth transfer scheme, an effort to use the power of federal spending to benefit the economic elites who are George W. Bush's core constituency. This is the thank-you for the hundreds of millions poured into Bush's re-election campaign.
What would fiscal prudence look like? Consider Iraq, where $9 billion slated for Iraqi reconstruction vanished into thin air, and $20 billion remains unaccounted for by Coalition Provisional Authority audits. Consider the allegations of price gouging and corruption that have been dogging Halliburton and all the other various contractors and subcontractors employed by a steadily privatizing military effort. There has been virtually no call, either from Bush or his Republican allies in Congress, to rein in the wasteful spending there.
And that's just Iraq -- it doesn't take into account all the usual rounds of Pentagon pork, the weapons systems nobody needs, manufactured in the districts of key Congressional allies.
That's where the excess money is going -- not to school kids, welfare queens, or grizzly bears. Or to states and local governments, most of which are facing their own budget crises.
The good news, if it can be called that, is that some of Bush's cuts are not likely to withstand the congressional process. Historically, Congress always adds more pork to the president's budget requests, regardless of which party is in charge. And most easy cuts in social programs have already been made in past years; there's not much left that doesn't have at least some vocal congressional constituency.
The net result is that some of these programs can be salvaged -- if people speak up. But it doesn't change the overall dynamic of wealth transfer: massive government spending that overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy, who in turn are paying less and less of the actual burden of financing government.
That dynamic is likely to stay with us for he next three budgets. One can only hope that voters remember whose interests Republicans are fighting for -- and whose they're not -- come election time.
Full Version: Bush budget's massive wealth transfer scheme
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Job Market, Fiscal, and Economic Policies > Job Market, Fiscal, & Economic Issues Archive
And what is new about that?
I heard several talking heads tell me and averybody else that would listen in the last year and a half. That the reason so many Americans is against higher taxes to the rich is becourse they expect to be rich themself someday, Ergo the same Americans is miserely Scrooges who wont pay if they can get away whit it, but at the same time complain over growing problems whit potholes, poor schools, growing intuisions and the like, But PAY for it?? NOOOooo.... not in your life that is somebody elses problem!
I heard several talking heads tell me and averybody else that would listen in the last year and a half. That the reason so many Americans is against higher taxes to the rich is becourse they expect to be rich themself someday, Ergo the same Americans is miserely Scrooges who wont pay if they can get away whit it, but at the same time complain over growing problems whit potholes, poor schools, growing intuisions and the like, But PAY for it?? NOOOooo.... not in your life that is somebody elses problem!
IMHO All Bush's plans work the same way. Take No Child Left Behind. The rich neighborhoods have better buildings, better teachers and better equipment. Their students were born to parents who had prenatal care. They have proper nutritian, medical care, dental care, eye care and even psycological care. They have less learning disabilities. They can afford tutors when there are problems. The teachers have the luxury of being able to teach subjects rather than how to pass tests. They will have a high success rate therefor will have no problem getting federal funds. The exact opposite is true about all the above statements pertaining to the poor kids. All there time will be spent just trying to pass the test. This will provide little help when they go out in the world on their own. The fact they they have a high percentage of kids with disadvantages in all areas will make their success rate low. They will loose federal funding. The result is the kids that need the most will get the least. The only way to equalize education is for all state funding and realestate taxes go in one pot to be divided per student. There should also be some form of extra funding for the schools who have large numbers of disadvanaged students with various handicaps. Last but not least, the thirty dollars per student that goes to Bush's brother for the test tutoring. :o <_< 
IMHO All Bush's plans work the same way. Take No Child Left Behind. The rich neighborhoods have better buildings, better teachers and better equipment. Their students were born to parents who had prenatal care. They have proper nutritian, medical care, dental care, eye care and even psycological care. They have less learning disabilities. They can afford tutors when there are problems. The teachers have the luxury of being able to teach subjects rather than how to pass tests. They will have a high success rate therefor will have no problem getting federal funds. The exact opposite is true about all the above statements pertaining to the poor kids. All there time will be spent just trying to pass the test. This will provide little help when they go out in the world on their own. The fact they they have a high percentage of kids with disadvantages in all areas will make their success rate low. They will lose federal funding. The result is the kids that need the most will get the least. The only way to equalize education is for all state funding and realestate taxes go in one pot to be divided per student. There should also be some form of extra funding for the schools who have large numbers of disadvanaged students with various handicaps. Last but not least, the thirty dollars per student that goes to Bush's brother Neil for the test tutoring. :o <_<
I left out the fact that many of the poor kids are latch key kids. Their parents are in minimum wage jobs and can't afford proper childcare. They don't have the proper help and support with their academic work in their home inviroment.
I left out the fact that many of the poor kids are latch key kids. Their parents are in minimum wage jobs and can't afford proper childcare. They don't have the proper help and support with their academic work in their home inviroment.
And it would be fun to mention if it were not so tragic, that a scheme like Bushes budget, can only work if the produktivity and economy keeps expanding ad infinitum, which is blatantly impossible.
But whom am I to Q the greatest president in decades if not for all time
But whom am I to Q the greatest president in decades if not for all time
Letter to editor 2/23/2005
Pittsburgh Post Gazette
Spend now, tax later
I laughed out loud while reading Gary Young's letter ("About the 'Little Folk,' " Feb. 18), which characterized the Republican Party as the party of the "little folk." Surely Mr. Young, who holds a local Republican committee position, knows that Mr. Bush's tax cuts have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest Americans. Surely he knows that this outrageous transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich is taking place despite the fact that the only Americans who have enjoyed growth in real income over the past three decades are our richest citizens.
I also laughed when Mr. Young used the worn-out characterization of Democrats as the "tax and spend" party. Surely Mr. Young knows that our previous Democratic administration enjoyed large budget surpluses while the current Bush administration has generated historic deficits that must be paid by future generations. I suppose we should call the Republicans the "spend now and tax your children later" party.
The final laugh came when Mr. Young suggested that the Democratic Party is racist. The Republicans are masters of spin and the creation of their own reality, but surely Mr. Young knows that the most important civil rights legislation in our recent history was fostered by the Democrats, not the Republicans.
Mr. Young and all the "little folk" should be less afraid of homosexuals, lawyers and losing their guns, and more afraid of the kind of society the current Republican Party hopes to create.
Pittsburgh Post Gazette
Spend now, tax later
I laughed out loud while reading Gary Young's letter ("About the 'Little Folk,' " Feb. 18), which characterized the Republican Party as the party of the "little folk." Surely Mr. Young, who holds a local Republican committee position, knows that Mr. Bush's tax cuts have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest Americans. Surely he knows that this outrageous transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich is taking place despite the fact that the only Americans who have enjoyed growth in real income over the past three decades are our richest citizens.
I also laughed when Mr. Young used the worn-out characterization of Democrats as the "tax and spend" party. Surely Mr. Young knows that our previous Democratic administration enjoyed large budget surpluses while the current Bush administration has generated historic deficits that must be paid by future generations. I suppose we should call the Republicans the "spend now and tax your children later" party.
The final laugh came when Mr. Young suggested that the Democratic Party is racist. The Republicans are masters of spin and the creation of their own reality, but surely Mr. Young knows that the most important civil rights legislation in our recent history was fostered by the Democrats, not the Republicans.
Mr. Young and all the "little folk" should be less afraid of homosexuals, lawyers and losing their guns, and more afraid of the kind of society the current Republican Party hopes to create.
Letter to editor
Pittsburgh Post Gazette
2/19/2005
More shenanigans?
Members of Congress are expressing growing alarm over the Bush administration's new projected costs of the Medicare prescription drug bill ("Drug Costs Rattle Congress," Feb. 10). The alarm is justified since the price tag of this deeply flawed legislation has rocketed into the fiscal stratosphere because of its massive amount of direct corporate subsidies and utter failure to contain costs, due to indefensible prohibitions on Medicare drug price negotiation with manufacturers.
What is even more alarming is that the Bush administration hid the true cost of this law from Congress. While it was under congressional debate, the administration's Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster, possessed estimates that showed the actual cost of the Medicare bill to be $156 billion more than the administration was claiming. Foster, a career nonpartisan civil servant, did not reveal this fact because he was under threat of job termination if he released this information to Congress.
The fact that Treasury Secretary John Snow recently testified before Congress that he was unable to provide complete long-term cost estimates of Mr. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security ("White House Can't Give SS Private Account Cost," Feb. 10) suggests that once more Congress is being kept in the dark by this administration.
To Congress I say, "Don't get fooled again." It is we, the current generation of taxpayers, and future generations, many as yet unborn, who will shoulder the full cost of the borrowing needed to finance Mr. Bush's budget-busting privatization scheme.
The time for full disclosure of the cost of this boondoggle is now, while the legislation is being debated. Nothing less than the fundamental principle of informed congressional oversight, a vital check provided by the Constitution against executive branch abuses, is at stake here.
Pittsburgh Post Gazette
2/19/2005
More shenanigans?
Members of Congress are expressing growing alarm over the Bush administration's new projected costs of the Medicare prescription drug bill ("Drug Costs Rattle Congress," Feb. 10). The alarm is justified since the price tag of this deeply flawed legislation has rocketed into the fiscal stratosphere because of its massive amount of direct corporate subsidies and utter failure to contain costs, due to indefensible prohibitions on Medicare drug price negotiation with manufacturers.
What is even more alarming is that the Bush administration hid the true cost of this law from Congress. While it was under congressional debate, the administration's Medicare actuary, Richard S. Foster, possessed estimates that showed the actual cost of the Medicare bill to be $156 billion more than the administration was claiming. Foster, a career nonpartisan civil servant, did not reveal this fact because he was under threat of job termination if he released this information to Congress.
The fact that Treasury Secretary John Snow recently testified before Congress that he was unable to provide complete long-term cost estimates of Mr. Bush's plan to privatize Social Security ("White House Can't Give SS Private Account Cost," Feb. 10) suggests that once more Congress is being kept in the dark by this administration.
To Congress I say, "Don't get fooled again." It is we, the current generation of taxpayers, and future generations, many as yet unborn, who will shoulder the full cost of the borrowing needed to finance Mr. Bush's budget-busting privatization scheme.
The time for full disclosure of the cost of this boondoggle is now, while the legislation is being debated. Nothing less than the fundamental principle of informed congressional oversight, a vital check provided by the Constitution against executive branch abuses, is at stake here.
Letters to editor
Pittsburgh Post Gazette
2/24/2005
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05055/461912.stm
GOP mind-set
Letter writer Gary Young's comments would be merely amusing were they not indicative of the new "Republican" mind-set ("About the 'Little Folks,' " Feb. 18). This mind-set involves presumption, name calling and oversimplification. The Republicans are still holding to their claimed party ideals while failing to recognize where this administration is coming up short in upholding these very ideals.
Perhaps Mr. Young would do better by being a little more critical of his own party's falterings (there are plenty to choose from), rather than rehash the same tired, contradictory and ignorant talking points. If the Democrats are amoral intellectual elitists, then the Republicans must be self-righteous lock-steppers who can't see the forest for the trees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda of meanness
Republican letter writer Gary Young gave his version of what Democrats represent ("About the 'Little Folks,' " Feb. 18). Well, this Democrat is going to tell you what Republicans represent. They are bought and paid for by corporate America and the elitist rich, whom Bush refers to as his base.
While they want government out of their religion, they want their brand of religion in our government. Republicans reject scientific evidence that doesn't support the agenda of their extremist supporters. Republicans are anti-family since they are against the very things that promote families' welfare, like health care, child care, minimum wage, unions, overtime pay, extended unemployment benefits, clean environments and full access to juries for awards.
The Republicans want to make abortion illegal, but they support nothing that would decrease unwanted pregnancies. This is reflected in the increase in abortions under President Bush. The Republicans support lies that took us into an unjustified war resulting in almost 1,500 American deaths. The Republicans support a huge deficit to fund this war and the tax cut for the rich, while supporting severe cuts in the domestic budget on the backs of the least among us. The Republicans support two ideas -- dismantle the domestic programs that have helped millions for more than 50 years and reward corporate America.
Their mean-spiritedness and their hypocrisy are staggering. Also, the Dixiecrats were not true Democrats, but a breakaway party that supported Strom Thurmond. Some say these racist Dixiecrats should now be known as Southern Republicans, supported by people like Trent Lott.
The Democrats have a long, proud history of helping the average American and creating the middle class. The Republicans control everything now. When Americans wake up someday to find that this country no longer resembles the great country it once was, they will realize the mistake they made by allowing this to happen.
Pittsburgh Post Gazette
2/24/2005
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05055/461912.stm
GOP mind-set
Letter writer Gary Young's comments would be merely amusing were they not indicative of the new "Republican" mind-set ("About the 'Little Folks,' " Feb. 18). This mind-set involves presumption, name calling and oversimplification. The Republicans are still holding to their claimed party ideals while failing to recognize where this administration is coming up short in upholding these very ideals.
Perhaps Mr. Young would do better by being a little more critical of his own party's falterings (there are plenty to choose from), rather than rehash the same tired, contradictory and ignorant talking points. If the Democrats are amoral intellectual elitists, then the Republicans must be self-righteous lock-steppers who can't see the forest for the trees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda of meanness
Republican letter writer Gary Young gave his version of what Democrats represent ("About the 'Little Folks,' " Feb. 18). Well, this Democrat is going to tell you what Republicans represent. They are bought and paid for by corporate America and the elitist rich, whom Bush refers to as his base.
While they want government out of their religion, they want their brand of religion in our government. Republicans reject scientific evidence that doesn't support the agenda of their extremist supporters. Republicans are anti-family since they are against the very things that promote families' welfare, like health care, child care, minimum wage, unions, overtime pay, extended unemployment benefits, clean environments and full access to juries for awards.
The Republicans want to make abortion illegal, but they support nothing that would decrease unwanted pregnancies. This is reflected in the increase in abortions under President Bush. The Republicans support lies that took us into an unjustified war resulting in almost 1,500 American deaths. The Republicans support a huge deficit to fund this war and the tax cut for the rich, while supporting severe cuts in the domestic budget on the backs of the least among us. The Republicans support two ideas -- dismantle the domestic programs that have helped millions for more than 50 years and reward corporate America.
Their mean-spiritedness and their hypocrisy are staggering. Also, the Dixiecrats were not true Democrats, but a breakaway party that supported Strom Thurmond. Some say these racist Dixiecrats should now be known as Southern Republicans, supported by people like Trent Lott.
The Democrats have a long, proud history of helping the average American and creating the middle class. The Republicans control everything now. When Americans wake up someday to find that this country no longer resembles the great country it once was, they will realize the mistake they made by allowing this to happen.
Letter to editor
3/4/2005
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05063/465978.stm
Budget foolishness
This letter is to the millions who mistakenly voted for George W. Bush. He's made such a mess of so many things and told so many lies, and the latest of these is the budget.
I have run a household for 38 years. How about this elementary idea? A budget consists of costs incurred in running a household (country). That means all costs, not just the ones that make the budget look good. It means a realistic account of all the money that goes in and out of the household (country).
Ladies and gentlemen, the Bush administration's budget should illustrate the same things. For instance, we could not run a family budget and forget about food or mortgage costs. How is it then that this president can put forth a budget and not include the cost of the war (which he started) and the cost of the Social Security plan?
A vast majority of Americans live above their means, just like this administration. Many have filed for bankruptcy -- much like our national deficit. It seems that whitewashing budgets is a way of life here in the United States. Mr. Bush thinks that if you don't see it, it must not matter. Unfortunately, it will matter, as this administration's debt is paid off by you and your children for many years to come. You've been duped!
3/4/2005
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05063/465978.stm
Budget foolishness
This letter is to the millions who mistakenly voted for George W. Bush. He's made such a mess of so many things and told so many lies, and the latest of these is the budget.
I have run a household for 38 years. How about this elementary idea? A budget consists of costs incurred in running a household (country). That means all costs, not just the ones that make the budget look good. It means a realistic account of all the money that goes in and out of the household (country).
Ladies and gentlemen, the Bush administration's budget should illustrate the same things. For instance, we could not run a family budget and forget about food or mortgage costs. How is it then that this president can put forth a budget and not include the cost of the war (which he started) and the cost of the Social Security plan?
A vast majority of Americans live above their means, just like this administration. Many have filed for bankruptcy -- much like our national deficit. It seems that whitewashing budgets is a way of life here in the United States. Mr. Bush thinks that if you don't see it, it must not matter. Unfortunately, it will matter, as this administration's debt is paid off by you and your children for many years to come. You've been duped!
Senate Votes to Forbid Drilling Filibuster
Updated 3:27 PM ET March 10, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...88oarcg0&src=ap
By ALAN FRAM
......The fight came as Republicans pushed their 2006 spending plan toward committee passage. Like President Bush's budget and a similar plan the House Budget Committee approved Wednesday, the Senate fiscal outline would shrink record federal deficits over the next five years by trimming domestic spending while cutting taxes and buttressing defense and anti-terrorism efforts.
At both panel's meetings, Democrats criticized Republicans for budgets they said would hurt the poor, students and others. They said deficits would be worse than the GOP was projecting because their plans were omitting the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond 2006, easing the alternative minimum tax's effect on middle-income earners, and Bush's goal of reshaping Social Security.
Overall, the Senate plan requires other Senate committees to write bills by June carving $32 billion in savings from Medicare, student loans, farm programs and other benefits over the next five years. Reflecting the House's more conservative tenor, its budget calls for $69 billion in such savings, nearly $20 billion more than Bush proposed.
The Senate budget also orders $70 billion in five-year tax cuts and gives them a procedural shield from filibusters. The House plan gives such protection to $45 billion in tax cuts, but House leaders say they plan to produce the full $106 billion Bush wants in tax cuts.
The full House and Senate plan to vote on their budgets next week. In April they will try to craft a compromise that eluded them last year because of a tax-cut fight that produced a stalemate.
Congress' budget sets overall spending and tax targets while leaving specific revenue and expenditure changes for later bills.
The House budget did not specify where the benefit reductions would come from. But based on the House committees assigned to find the savings, the Medicaid program for the poor and elderly could be targeted for up to $20 billion in five-year cuts _ more than double Bush's plan _ plus other reductions for student loans, welfare, farmers and veterans.
By law, benefit programs grow automatically to cover inflation and population growth. While overall spending for these programs would grow under the GOP budgets, growth would be slowed through lower benefits, lower payments to providers or smaller numbers of recipients served.
Both budgets would hold domestic programs except benefits to just less than last year, with decisions on specifics to be made later. They would push Pentagon spending to $419 billion, growth of 4.8 percent, with a smaller increase for anti-terror programs at home.
Following last year's record $412 billion deficit, the House projects a 2006 shortfall of $376 billion and the Senate a $362 billion gap. Both chambers claim to meet Bush's goal of halving the deficit by 2009, though their starting point is Bush's overestimated 2004 shortfall of $521 billion.
The two chambers see deficits dipping close to $200 billion by 2010. That is the last year covered by both plans, just as the baby boom retirement is expected to start driving shortfalls higher again.
[republican budget deficits include social security surpluses, thus the deficits are actually higher]
Updated 3:27 PM ET March 10, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...88oarcg0&src=ap
By ALAN FRAM
......The fight came as Republicans pushed their 2006 spending plan toward committee passage. Like President Bush's budget and a similar plan the House Budget Committee approved Wednesday, the Senate fiscal outline would shrink record federal deficits over the next five years by trimming domestic spending while cutting taxes and buttressing defense and anti-terrorism efforts.
At both panel's meetings, Democrats criticized Republicans for budgets they said would hurt the poor, students and others. They said deficits would be worse than the GOP was projecting because their plans were omitting the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond 2006, easing the alternative minimum tax's effect on middle-income earners, and Bush's goal of reshaping Social Security.
Overall, the Senate plan requires other Senate committees to write bills by June carving $32 billion in savings from Medicare, student loans, farm programs and other benefits over the next five years. Reflecting the House's more conservative tenor, its budget calls for $69 billion in such savings, nearly $20 billion more than Bush proposed.
The Senate budget also orders $70 billion in five-year tax cuts and gives them a procedural shield from filibusters. The House plan gives such protection to $45 billion in tax cuts, but House leaders say they plan to produce the full $106 billion Bush wants in tax cuts.
The full House and Senate plan to vote on their budgets next week. In April they will try to craft a compromise that eluded them last year because of a tax-cut fight that produced a stalemate.
Congress' budget sets overall spending and tax targets while leaving specific revenue and expenditure changes for later bills.
The House budget did not specify where the benefit reductions would come from. But based on the House committees assigned to find the savings, the Medicaid program for the poor and elderly could be targeted for up to $20 billion in five-year cuts _ more than double Bush's plan _ plus other reductions for student loans, welfare, farmers and veterans.
By law, benefit programs grow automatically to cover inflation and population growth. While overall spending for these programs would grow under the GOP budgets, growth would be slowed through lower benefits, lower payments to providers or smaller numbers of recipients served.
Both budgets would hold domestic programs except benefits to just less than last year, with decisions on specifics to be made later. They would push Pentagon spending to $419 billion, growth of 4.8 percent, with a smaller increase for anti-terror programs at home.
Following last year's record $412 billion deficit, the House projects a 2006 shortfall of $376 billion and the Senate a $362 billion gap. Both chambers claim to meet Bush's goal of halving the deficit by 2009, though their starting point is Bush's overestimated 2004 shortfall of $521 billion.
The two chambers see deficits dipping close to $200 billion by 2010. That is the last year covered by both plans, just as the baby boom retirement is expected to start driving shortfalls higher again.
[republican budget deficits include social security surpluses, thus the deficits are actually higher]
Congressman Doubts Budget Will Be Passed
Updated 6:23 PM ET March 15, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...88rmt2g0&src=ap
By ALAN FRAM
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee chastised the GOP-run Senate on Tuesday for producing a fiscal outline with too much spending and cast doubt on whether Congress will complete a budget this year.
The remarks by Rep. Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, reflected a frustration by some of the House's more conservative leaders with the more moderate Senate. Last year, the two chambers failed to produce a budget after moderate GOP senators joined Democrats in demanding curbs on tax cuts that House Republicans rejected.
Nussle's comments also came as the Senate, in the middle of its debate over a nearly $2.6 trillion budget for 2006, faces efforts by lawmakers of both parties to prevent cuts in Medicaid, community development, Amtrak and other programs. Following President Bush's lead, the House and Senate budget committees have produced budgets that could lead to cuts in those programs.
"We're not going to budge when it comes to controlling spending," Nussle told reporters......
[the republicans have not issued complete budgets for the last 4 years.]
Updated 6:23 PM ET March 15, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...88rmt2g0&src=ap
By ALAN FRAM
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee chastised the GOP-run Senate on Tuesday for producing a fiscal outline with too much spending and cast doubt on whether Congress will complete a budget this year.
The remarks by Rep. Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, reflected a frustration by some of the House's more conservative leaders with the more moderate Senate. Last year, the two chambers failed to produce a budget after moderate GOP senators joined Democrats in demanding curbs on tax cuts that House Republicans rejected.
Nussle's comments also came as the Senate, in the middle of its debate over a nearly $2.6 trillion budget for 2006, faces efforts by lawmakers of both parties to prevent cuts in Medicaid, community development, Amtrak and other programs. Following President Bush's lead, the House and Senate budget committees have produced budgets that could lead to cuts in those programs.
"We're not going to budge when it comes to controlling spending," Nussle told reporters......
[the republicans have not issued complete budgets for the last 4 years.]
Senators Coburn (OK-R) and McCain -(AZ-R) are slowing down the emergency supplemental bill for Iraq/Afghanistan so they can remove the "pork/non-emergency add-ons" one at a time.
The Oklahoma Senator says the people should not pay for increased debt if the add-on is not an emergency.
The Oklahoma Senator says the people should not pay for increased debt if the add-on is not an emergency.
Senator Specter wants a $40 million appropriation for a Philadelphia company in the Navy shipyards which McCain says will not re-open and the Navy doesn't want the ship.
Senator Coburn keeps bringing up add-ons to delete. His fellow republicans are the ones against his amendments.
The last ones were for the new Iraq embassy through 2007 and money for a college in Hawaii. He's going after democrats and republicans.
The last ones were for the new Iraq embassy through 2007 and money for a college in Hawaii. He's going after democrats and republicans.
I was going to email Senator Coburn to support his efforts to reign in the budget process but he doesn't have one yet.
He must be the only senator without an email.
He must be the only senator without an email.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.