Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, February 7, 2006

Bush budget plan poses difficult choices during election year

Document released Monday clamps down on domestic programs, including Medicare

February 7, 2006

Advertisement

— President Bush sent his GOP allies in Congress an austere budget for next year that is filled with political land mines and flush with difficult choices.

The document unveiled Monday clamps down on domestic programs favored by lawmakers and calls for politically perilous curbs to Medicare that promise to bog down in a Congress already poisoned by election-year politics.

"It's a heavy lift," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "There's no question it's going to be a challenge."

Despite the sacrifices called for in education, Amtrak, community development and local law enforcement grants, health research, and many other programs frozen or cut under his plan, Bush's $2.77 trillion blueprint forecasts a record $423 billion deficit for the current year and improves upon that figure in 2007 largely by lowballing cost estimates for the war in Iraq.

Bush gives a generous 6.9 percent budget increase to the Pentagon - which would receive a record $439 billion before accounting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - and wants Congress to pass a $3 billion or 14 percent increase in foreign aid.

His proposal projects $70 billion in new funds to execute the war in Iraq through the end of September, which will come in a detailed request later this month and bring total war funding for 2006 to $120 billion. Another $50 billion is allocated for next year.

"My administration has focused the nation's resources on our highest priority - protecting our citizens and our homeland," Bush said in his budget message.

The White House also said that it will request another $18 billion or so in hurricane relief in the next few days.

At the same time, Bush proposes to kill or dramatically slash 141 programs for savings of almost $15 billion. Congress is likely to reject many of the cuts, such as a proposal to kill the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides food aid to the very poor.

Moderate Republicans such as Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Olympia Snowe of Maine recoiled at cuts to social programs, while farm state conservatives blasted cuts in crop payments. Specter said proposals for education and health spending were "scandalous."

Major initiatives like making Bush's landmark tax cuts permanent and providing $52 billion in health care tax breaks through 2011 face challenges of their own. Every year, Bush has called for making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. Congress has yet to do so.

Most of Bush's tax cuts expire in 2010. Extending them would cost $120 billion in 2011 and $1.2 trillion from 2012-2016.

The White House credits Bush's tax cuts for fueling economic growth and surging revenues despite high fuel prices, last year's devastating hurricanes and the recession and terrorist attacks of 2001.

"Those tax cuts are essential toward sustaining the good economic growth we have now," said White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten. "The most important thing we can do with our federal budget is keep a good, strong, growing economy that's generating jobs."

The budget plan projects deficits on a downward trajectory, especially when measured against the size of the economy and meets, at least on paper, Bush's 2004 promise to cut the deficit in half. That year Bush projected a $521 billion deficit and promised to cut that in half by 2009.

Bush projects a 2009 deficit of $208 billion, but that depends on Congress accepting all of his spending cut proposals. His budget also leaves out the long-term costs of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, which are impossible to predict with certainty.

With the increases for the Pentagon, this year's Iraq and Afghanistan war costs, and new tax cuts for health care, the budget shows that deficits over the five years ending in 2011 would total nearly $1.2 trillion.

Democrats charged that the real picture is worse and that Bush was understating future deficits by leaving out major items such as the long-term costs of the Iraq war and permanently fixing the alternative minimum so it doesn't hit more middle-class families.

"It explodes deficits, but then conceals them by providing only five years of numbers and leaving out large costs," said Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, senior Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. "The result will be more debt passed on to our children."

For mandatory programs providing fixed benefits such as Medicare, farm subsidies and Medicaid and whose spending rises each year as if on autopilot, Bush is proposing $65 billion in savings over the next five years, much of it from the rapidly growing Medicare program for the elderly.

The proposal would reduce spending on Medicare over the next five years by $36 billion, or less than 2 percent. Most of the reductions would come from smaller inflation adjustments for hospitals, nursing homes, home health care providers and hospices. Higher-income seniors would see increased premiums.

Bush's Medicare plan largely follows the recommendations of a bipartisan Medicare advisory panel, but the cuts nonetheless generated howls of outrage from Democrats and industry groups.

"Hospitals already are stretching scarce resources to respond to the daily challenges of providing care to all who come through our doors," said Dick Davidson, president of the American Hospital Association. "Cuts to these resources will have a negative impact on the availability of care for the patients and communities we serve."

Congress already rejected many of Bush budget cut proposals when it sent him a $39 billion deficit cut package last week, but they showed up again in his 2007 blueprint. For example, Bush again asked for a 5 percent cut in crop payments to farmers and tighter eligibility for food stamps.

The president may find more success in tamping down domestic agency operating budgets that take up about one-sixth of the federal pie. Last year, Bush successfully forced Congress to narrowly cut such spending and his 2007 plan proposes a more than 1 percent cut in domestic agency operating budgets.

Those cuts are magnified since the budget proposes $3 billion in new fees next year to finance new spending elsewhere. Once again, better-off veterans are again being asked to make higher co-payments for prescription drugs and pay a new $250 annual enrollment fee for their medical care. Congress has rejected both three years in a row.

A new proposal to raise fees on some better-off military retirees enrolled in the Pentagon's Tricare program isn't likely to fare much better. Also back is a proposed new $5 fee on each way of air travel to pay $1.6 billion of the cost for airport screenings. That, too, was rejected by Congress last year.

Comments

Ragingbear 8 years, 2 months ago

The reason the Democrats aren't making a fuss is because the average American thinks that the debt isn't something to worry about. If we run out of money, just make more. That is why. Remember that the debt was the cornerstone of the Perot campaign, and nobody cared.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 8 years, 2 months ago

The combination of the trade deficit with China and their buying up our chits mean that we are borrowing on their slave labor for our spending. And by far the most discretionary spending is for vanity wars. Someday, likely sooner than we want, China will call in its chits, and the chit will hit the fan.

0

mcoan 8 years, 2 months ago

Haven't we seen this all before? Isn't this just like the Reagan budgets: Spend, spend, spend on the military, and cut everything else? He talked about "deficit reduction," too, yet the National Debt rose by 189% during Reagan's term in office!

Don't believe all this talk about deficit reduction, folks: All that matters is the National Debt.

Since 12/31/2000, the Natl. Debt:

...Has risen 47% (contrast with the previous 8 yrs., 12/31/92 to 12/31/2000, when it rose 36%)

...Is rising at an average annual rate of 8.9%. Has increased from 57.7% to 64.8% as a percentage of our total GDP.

...The $27,430 each person (not taxpayer, person) owes is now 83% of our $33,000 personal income. That ties the records set in 1994 and 1996, after which it improved to 67% by the end of 2000.

The interest on the national debt at the end of fiscal year 2005 was $352.35 billion. Even if the debt was reduced, as interest rates increase, this figure will increase. That's a lot of money that can't be spent on things like education and health care.

Think about it...we already owe $27K per person, and it's increasing at 9% a year. What is the limit? What are we saddling our children and grand children with, during a time of declining real wages and a shrinking middle class?

This is staggering folks! I think disgusting is the best word to describe it.

And WHY ISN'T THIS REPORTED IN THE PRESS?

(And why can't the Democrats make political hay out of it?)

To view the debt stats by presidential term, visit http://www.skymachines.com/US_National_Debt_Per_Capita_Percent_of_GDP_and_by_President_1976-2004.htm

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.