Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bush sends Congress $3.1 trillion budget plan
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Foreign Policy and National Defense > Foreign Policy & National Defense Issues Archive
xyzse
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22990613
QUOTE
Bush sends Congress $3.1 trillion budget plan
Spending plan features big increases for defense and big deficits

AP

updated 3 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - President Bush sent the nation's first-ever $3 trillion budget proposal to Congress on Monday, contending that the spending blueprint will fulfill his chief responsibility to keep America safe.

The $3.1 trillion proposed budget projects sizable increases in national security but forces the rest of government to pinch pennies. It seeks $196 billion in savings over five years in the government's giant health care programs - Medicare and Medicaid.

But even with those restraints, the budget projects the deficits will soar to near-record levels of $410 billion this year and $407 billion in 2009, driven higher in part by efforts to revive the sagging economy with a $145 billion stimulus package.

Bush called the document, which protects his signature tax cuts, "a good, solid budget" But Democrats, and even a top Republican, attacked the plan for using budgetary gimmicks to claim the budget can return to balance in 2012, three years after Bush leaves office.

Democrats called Bush's final spending plan a continuation of this administration's failed policies which wiped out a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion and replaced it with a record buildup in debt.

Democratic response
"Today's budget bears all the hallmarks of the Bush legacy - it leads to more deficits, more debt, more tax cuts, more cutbacks in critical services," said House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C.

For his last budget, Bush, as a money-saving measure, stopped the practice of providing 3,000 paper copies of the budget to members of Congress and the media, instead posting the entire document online at http://www.budget.gov. Democrats joked that Bush cut back on the printed copies because he ran out of red ink.

"This budget is fiscally irresponsible and highly deceptive, hiding the costs of the war in Iraq while increasing the skyrocketing debt,' said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

"The president proposes more of the same failed policies he has embraced throughout his time in office - more deficit-financed war spending, more deficit-financed tax cuts tilted to benefit the wealthiest and more borrowing from foreign nations like China and Japan," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

Bush defended his record, saying it supported a strong defense and, if his policies are followed, will produce a budget surplus of $48 billion in 2012.

"Two key principles guided the development of my budget - keeping America safe and ensuring our continued prosperity," Bush said in his budget message to Congress.

Reviewing the budget with his Cabinet, Bush said it would keep the economy growing and protect the U.S. militarily. He called it "innovative" because it was dispatched to Congress electronically.

Bush's final full budget is for the 2009 fiscal year, which begins on Oct. 1. It proposes spending $3.1 trillion, up 6 percent from projected spending of $2.9 trillion in the current budget year.

Part of the deficit increase this year and next reflects the cost of a $145 billion stimulus package of tax refunds for individuals and tax cuts for business investment that Bush is urging Congress to pass quickly to try to combat a threatened recession.

White House budget director Jim Nussle, briefing reporters on the spending plan, said that the quick bipartisan agreement reached on the stimulus package in the House showed what could happen when Democrats wanted to work with the White House to get things done. The stimulus plan has yet to clear the Senate.

Budget battles ahead
Democrats said the forecast of a budget surplus in 2012 was based on flawed math that only included $70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009 and no money after that. It also failed to include any provisions after this year for keeping the alternative minimum tax, originally aimed at the wealthy, from ensnaring millions of middle-class taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that fixing the AMT in 2012 would cost $118 billion, more than double the surplus Bush is projecting for that year.

White House press secretary Dana Perino told reporters that the war effort in 2009 would "certainly" cost more than the $70 billion included in the budget.

Even some Republicans faulted Bush's budget sleight of hand to project a balanced budget in 2012.

"They've obviously played an inordinate number of games to try to make it look better," Sen. Judd Gregg, the top Republican on the Budget Committee, said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"Let's face it. This budget is done with the understanding that nobody's going to be taking a long, hard look at it," said Gregg, R-N.H.

Bush's spending blueprint sets the stage for what will probably be epic battles in the president's last year in office, as both parties seek to gain advantages with voters heading into the November elections. Some have suggested that Democrats, unable to override Bush's expected vetoes, might choose to keep the government operating with a stopgap funding bill in hopes that a Democrat more amenable to their priorities will be elected in November.

The 6 percent overall increase in spending for 2009 reflects a continued surge in spending on the government's huge benefit programs for the elderly - Social Security and Medicare, even with the projected five-year savings of $196 billion over five years. Those savings are achieved by freezing payments to hospitals and other health care providers. A much-smaller effort by Bush in this area last year went nowhere in Congress.

While Bush projects that total security funding in the areas of the budget controlled by annual appropriations will go up by 8.2 percent, he projects only a 0.3 percent increase in discretionary spending for the rest of government.

To achieve such a small boost, Bush would hold hundreds of programs well below what is needed to keep up with inflation. He also seeks to eliminate or sharply slash 151 programs he considers unnecessary.

Nussle said that Congress had agreed to eliminate 29 of 141 programs Bush targeted last year, which he said was a good start.

This year, the largest number of program terminations - 47 - are in education including elimination of programs to encourage arts in schools, bring low-income students on trips to Washington and provide mental health services.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Good god, and they are adding more and more in to defense spending?
Seriously they just have to make it more efficient.

Really have to work on this one chief.
xyzse
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...0,4188925.story
QUOTE
Bush proposes $3.1-trillion budget

Military spending would grow and retiree health benefits would shrink under the plan. Democrats in Congress assail it.

By Maura Reynolds and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
9:59 AM PST, February 4, 2008

WASHINGTON -- President Bush unveiled a $3.1-trillion budget today that would boost military spending and trim health benefits for retirees. The proposal was immediately tagged by Democrats as "irresponsible."

The first spending plan in history to top $3 trillion would freeze or eliminate many domestic spending programs yet still rack up a $407-billion deficit for fiscal 2009, which begins Oct. 1. The Pentagon is the only department for which Bush proposes a significant increase; its budget would grow 7.5% to $515 billion.

"It's a good budget," Bush said after meeting with his Cabinet. "It's a budget that achieves some important objectives. One, it understands our top priority is to defend our country, so we fund our military as well as fund the homeland security."

Because Bush is leaving office in a year, his budget proposal is largely an academic exercise. The Democratic-controlled Congress has responsibility for proposing and passing budget bills, and it's unlikely to adopt his priorities.

The plan's significance is mostly political. Bush's proposal seeks to codify the policies he considers his legacies as president, namely the tax cuts he won in 2001 and 2003; significant increases in military spending; and a few education programs, including his No Child Left Behind legislation.

For Democrats, the Bush budget provides a summary of the policies of his administration they find most egregious: the war in Iraq, tax cuts that worsened the federal deficit, and the squeezing of social programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

"This budget is fiscally irresponsible and highly deceptive, hiding the costs of the war in Iraq while increasing our skyrocketing debt," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "President Bush's fiscal policies are the worst in our nation's history -- he has turned record surpluses into record deficits -- and this budget is more of the same."

Bush said the proposal would balance the federal budget by 2012. But Democrats said it would do so by relying on accounting tricks, including ignoring most funding for the Iraq war and pretending that the government would essentially permit a huge tax increase on the middle class by not rescinding the alternative minimum tax after Bush leaves office.

"The president proposes more of the same failed policies he has embraced throughout his time in office -- more deficit-financed war spending, more deficit-financed tax cuts tilted to benefit the wealthiest and more borrowing from foreign nations like China and Japan," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

The deficit projections are also worsened by the $146-billion economic stimulus package negotiated between the administration and Congress in an effort to soften or forestall a feared recession. The budget assumes a 3% increase in gross domestic product this year, a rate that is unlikely if the economy continues to slow down as it has in recent months.

"When President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.7 trillion," said Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.). chairman of the House Budget Committee. "Today it is $9.2 trillion and rising, projected to increase to $9.7 trillion by the time President Bush leaves office -- up by $4 trillion in eight years. This is the legacy our children and grandchildren will inherit from the fiscal policy of this administration."

But the administration hailed the budget as balanced and innovative.

In a cost-saving gesture, the government for the first time did not provide free copies of the four-volume proposal to Congress, instead releasing it online and charging $200 per printed copy ordered through the Government Printing Office.

"It's not only an innovative budget, in that it's coming to Congress over the Internet, it's a budget that's balanced -- gets to balance in 2012 and saves taxpayers money," Bush said.

A hefty chunk of the proposed savings would come from the government's two giant healthcare programs, Medicare and Medicaid, but leading Democratic lawmakers have already called the cuts unacceptable.

Medicare, which serves about 44 million seniors and disabled people, would be squeezed by $178 billion over five years, reducing its growth from an average of 7.2% a year to 5% a year. At least $115 billion of the savings would come from reduced payments to hospitals, according to initial calculations by a senior Democratic congressional aide. Hospitals and other providers in traditional Medicare would face the sharpest cuts, and private health insurance plans that now constitute one of the fastest-growing parts of the program would get only a light trim, critics said.

Over 10 years, Bush's proposed Medicare savings would grow to $556 billion.

The president also called for reductions totaling $17 billion over five years in Medicaid, a federal-state partnership that serves some 55 million people, including the poor and many elderly nursing home residents.

Although the scale of Bush's Medicare reductions appear to be far beyond what Congress would accept, some of his specific proposals may make into law. Congress must act by the summer to roll back a scheduled cut in Medicare fees to doctors, and it will have to consider cutting other parts of the program to offset the added costs of protecting physicians.

Addressing other health priorities, Bush proposed a modest increase in the Food and Drug Administration's food safety budget, but some critics said it would do little more than offset inflation. And public health advocates protested a proposed 7% cut for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

maura.reynolds@latimes.com

ricardo.alonso-zaldivar@latimes.com
xyzse
Hrm, no discussion on this?

Stuck on the Obama/Clinton thing. Ugh. In truth, I think the Obama/Clinton debate is useless to me now. I won't be able to convince any one for Obama to look at him more carefully, granted some have and still stuck with him which is good, but it is the same with those for Clinton. We are already set on who we want, or in the case of me, I don't like either but HC leaning.

I doubt anything can be said that would change my view about Obama being better, because I absolutely don't see it. So, saying that, I don't see why the budget is not being discussed for now instead, since this is also important.

The defense budget increased even more, they trimmed healthcare benefits for those who really need it. They played around with the numbers even though it doesn't make sense and we'll be borrowing even more heavily.

His reduction on pork-barrel spending came 7 years too late. I blame the congressional majorities that made ear-marks as rewards and as a SOP rather than the exception from before. With Delay it just got worse, which was during the Bush/Republican majority on the first four years.

One must realize that yes, sometimes taxes are excessive but they perform a role in infrastructure and other programs. They don't seem to really want to fix this system to begin with.
Indianhead
Leave it to Reagan (that icon of conservative politics) to
lead the first $1 trillion budget, and his God-Son GW to
lead to the first $2 trillion and $3 trillion (without war funding)
budgets.

Anybody in the world still believe that Republicans are conservative?
piccadilly
QUOTE(xyzse @ Feb 4 2008, 01:44 PM) *
QUOTE

Bush defended his record, saying it supported a strong defense and, if his policies are followed, will produce a budget surplus of $48 billion in 2012.



Exactly, what is there left in the US that justifies "a strong defense" ?

Is it like somebody is going to invade us for our oil ?
jeffmoskin
QUOTE(xyzse @ Feb 4 2008, 01:52 PM) *
Hrm, no discussion on this?

Discussion is difficult when your jaw goes slack.

A $3.1 TRILLION budget.

And this is from a "conservative?"

# United States federal budget, 2001 - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
# United States federal budget, 2000 - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
# United States federal budget, 1999 - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
# United States federal budget, 1998 - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
# United States federal budget, 1997 - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
# United States federal budget, 1996 - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)

source: wikipedia

Our GDP is around 12 Trillion, so this puts the budget at 25% of GDP.

And this is from an advocate of "smaller government?"

I have no discussion because I am dumbfounded.
piccadilly
Bush defended his record, saying ... if his policies are followed, will produce a budget surplus of $48 billion in 2012.

3 trillions x 4 years for a 48 billion surplus

Da Chimp 4 year Performance = 48 / 12000 = 0.004 = 0.4% (not counting the deficits until then).

Da Chimp annual Performance = 0.4% / 4 years = 0.1%



Indianhead
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/washingt...5assess.html?hp

New York Times
News Analysis
Bush’s Final Budget Hints at Tough Choices Ahead

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Published: February 5, 2008

WASHINGTON — President Bush’s final budget, a $3 trillion plan offered Monday that would continue his tax cuts and sharply reduce domestic spending, has little chance of surviving in a Democratic Congress. But the problems it lays out will survive and grow, presenting tough choices for the next administration.

How, for example, will the next president rein in the cost of retirement and health programs? What will he or she do about tax increases on Americans when Mr. Bush’s tax cuts expire at the end of 2010, or when the alternative minimum tax propels millions of taxpayers into higher brackets each year?

Beyond these familiar traps, how will a Republican president pay for further promised tax cuts or a Democratic president pay for a sweeping health care overhaul without increasing the red ink left by Mr. Bush?

“Republicans and Democrats are in complete denial on these issues,” said Robert D. Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute and former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “But were they to face up to the long-run fiscal challenges, it would be a ticket to defeat. It’s not what voters want to hear.”

The presidential campaign does not exactly reverberate with proposals for dealing with these problems.

For the Democrats, Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would find the money by letting taxes rise for the wealthiest Americans. But that step would not raise enough money to pay for the spending programs they propose.

On the Republican side, Senator John McCain of Arizona and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts would cut wasteful federal spending — Mr. McCain points to “earmarks” for “pork barrel” projects — but budget experts agree that there is not enough money to be had from that course of action either.

Mr. Bush’s budget would cut earmarks by $18 billion, an amount certain to provoke outcries in Congress but so small as to be of symbolic importance.

A presidential election year, of course, is rarely a time for politicians to propose outsized, unpleasant choices. But with the economy turning downward, there is even less appetite this year to wage ideological battles.

The deficit is expected to grow to at least $400 billion, or just under 3 percent of the gross domestic product, in Mr. Bush’s final year in office, and probably more than that because of the Iraq war. That level approaches previous deficit records and is considerably higher than what Mr. Bush had projected a few months ago. The largest federal budget deficit — $413 billion, or 3.6 percent of the overall economy — came in the 2004 fiscal year.

But a large part of the shortfall results from the normal decline in federal revenues when there is an economic downturn, along with the stimulus package that leaders of both parties support.

Instead of deploring deficit spending, both sides have come together to agree that financial reckoning will have to be postponed. Jim Nussle, a former Republican congressman from Iowa who is the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said there was little short-run reason to worry.

“It’s a manageable deficit,” Mr. Nussle said. “It isn’t the largest in history by any stretch of the imagination.”

Mr. Nussle also said that the large deficit “in sheer dollar terms doesn’t mean anythingbecause, compared with the size of the economy, the deficit had not grown by that much.

But Democrats and their budget allies argue that if the deficit can be dismissed so easily, so can the problem of domestic spending.

Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, said “discretionary” domestic spending — which is everything outside national security and entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — is falling to historic lows as a proportion of the overall economy, roughly 3 percent or less.

Cuts in this spending, which makes up perhaps a sixth of the budget, was what provoked outrage in Congress because the White House wants to eliminate or scale back dozens of programs, including home heating assistance, aid to schools and housing vouchers for the poor.

A year ago, Mr. Bush proposed similar cuts and found that even with a Democratic-controlled Congress, he could use veto threats to get his way. In December, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill for the current fiscal year that added a mere $20 billion over what Mr. Bush had sought.

Everyone agrees that the unconstrained growth in the cost of entitlement programs poses a long-term threat to federal solvency. Last year, Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, cited projections of the Congressional Budget Office that Social Security and Medicare outlays were due to rise from 8.5 percent of the economy to 10.5 percent in 2015 and 15 percent in 2030.

The cost of continuing the Bush tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 and of preventing more taxpayers from being hit by the alternative minimum tax is estimated at $4 trillion over 10 years.

Mr. Bush’s new budget would sharply cut the growth of Medicare and Medicaid by reducing payments to hospitals and doctors. Democrats reject such ideas, but their budget experts also know that something needs to be done.

One idea, advanced by Senators Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, and Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, is to set up a bipartisan commission to help the next president and Congress deal with these issues, possibly through legislation.

Another idea, intended to get out from under the financial constraints imposed by the “pay as you go” philosophy embraced by some Democrats, would establish a federal capital budget, similar to what many businesses and local governments have. Such a budget would pay for infrastructure — bridges, roads, ports and the like — by borrowing rather than charging them to the annual budget.

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

Can you feel a little conservatism creeping in. No, not the neo-con lie,
but true conservatism: reducing foreign entanglements, limiting entitlements, rolling back trade policies, building infrastructure.

Dreamin' is nice, but I'm smelling coffee.
gmorning.gif
jeffmoskin
Oh, I forgot to ask...

Where is Bush planning on GETTING this 3.1 Billion from?

The backs of the poor as usual??

I don't think those backs are that broad.
xyzse
QUOTE(jeffmoskin @ Feb 4 2008, 08:01 PM) *
Discussion is difficult when your jaw goes slack.
I have no discussion because I am dumbfounded.
Oh, you're absolutely right.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.