Bush 2005 budget to be released Monday

[DemoCoder]

It also included the government refinancing some of it's debt with shorter term notes. e.g. creative financing. Lower interest rates, but the bill comes due shorter. Not to mention the continual use of social security surpluses to subtract out the debt.

 

[pax]

All I know is they better find a cure for alzheimers or at least most of its forms (some suspect alzheimers is in fact as many as about 200 diff diseases) as current rate of increase of new diagnoses in 30 years we'll be spending the entire budget on taking care of victims of that disease... Thats the budget in terms of gdp not current dollars then...

 

[Fred]

Reagan and Bush I also dealt with various wars. The former the cold war, the latter IraqI. Much of the deficits can be attributed to those external factors. Clinton had Kosovo, but that was negligable in comparison.

Look, theres obviously many ways to look at a budget gap or surplus, you could point to tax increases or decreases, external economic stimuli, or you could point out discretionary spending or cuts. I could for instance argue that G.W had the right idea with the tax cuts, but was hit with 9/11 and the Iraq war and that is the sole reason for the deficit. But the policy is fine!

Which point you pick out, is indicative of whatever bias or political agenda you push.

The principle is however lost in the rhetoric. What matters most IMO is the relative efficiency of government. It strikes me that for the last 30 years many really unpragmatic programs have been put in place. Only Reagan in his first term, and Clinton/Gingrich in the second term have even tried to curtail the pork and the excessive crap that the government pushes on the taxpayer. Many of the social programs, education and the funding for the grossly innefficient military engine have basically erased a good deal of potential value that could have been used for the same purposes in far better ways.

Fortunately, the military has begun to be revised and streamlined, remains the Medicare giant (that was dealt with very poorly by G. W) and the pork that can seemingly only be eliminated by something like a line item veto (RIP) or really gutsy politicians.

What we really need is another Newt Gingrich to come in and kick the politicians around and curtail G.W in his next term.

 

[Babel-17]

Lol

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/30/budget.flub.ap/index.html


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Flubbing Pentagon efforts to maintain strict secrecy, someone accidentally posted next year's military budget plan on the Internet.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=339947

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration is seeking a big increase in spending for missile defense next year, setting the program on course to have a bare-bones system in place by the end of this year and up to 30 interceptors on land and at sea by the end of 2005.


The money is part of a proposed $401.7 billion Pentagon budget that doesn't include money for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Officials last year went back to Congress for $87 billion beyond their budget to fund those missions, and documents obtained by The Associated Press show they expect to have to ask for money beyond this new budget as well.

/snip/

he proposal also includes more money for spare parts for Army vehicles such as tanks, armored personnel carriers and Humvees: $20.1 million instead of $17.9 million. Soldiers have complained that using the vehicles so heavily in the harsh environment of Iraq has caused them to break down more frequently. There is also a slight increase for ammunition.

Personnel needs, including salaries and benefits, were put at $105 billion, up from $98.3 billion this year. Other major categories in the $401.7 billion total include $141 billion for operation and maintenance; $70 billion for research, development and testing; $5.3 billion for construction and $4.2 billion for family housing.

The Pentagon request is part of an overall $2.3 trillion budget that Bush will propose.

/end/

 

[Natoma]

Reagan and Bush I also dealt with various wars. The former the cold war, the latter IraqI. Much of the deficits can be attributed to those external factors. Clinton had Kosovo, but that was negligable in comparison.

Eh? We only paid out $3 Billion for the first Iraq war because we got the rest of the world to pay for it. The Cold War certainly was a huge factor in our expenditures in the 80s. But the first Iraq war was a drop in the bucket.

Look, theres obviously many ways to look at a budget gap or surplus, you could point to tax increases or decreases, external economic stimuli, or you could point out discretionary spending or cuts. I could for instance argue that G.W had the right idea with the tax cuts, but was hit with 9/11 and the Iraq war and that is the sole reason for the deficit. But the policy is fine!

But in light of 9/11 and the Iraq war, he has enacted another $900 Billion in tax cuts. The 2001 tax cuts could be argued as "responsible" because at the time, the CBO saw surpluses as far as the eye could see. You could argue against the 2001 tax cuts for other reasons, but it was a fiscally sound policy, when comparing the impact against the budget and deficit spending. The 2002 and 2003 tax cuts (and from what I hear, 2004 tax cuts) have no such level headed reasoning attached.

Fortunately, the military has begun to be revised and streamlined, remains the Medicare giant (that was dealt with very poorly by G. W) and the pork that can seemingly only be eliminated by something like a line item veto (RIP) or really gutsy politicians.

Agreed. Unfortunately Medicare "reform" will never occur. Once you start down that path, you've committed political hari kari. It'll be even more pronounced when 75 Million boomers retire over the next decade or so, and begin realizing their stake in keeping Medicare the pork barrel it is today.

What we really need is another Newt Gingrich to come in and kick the politicians around and curtail G.W in his next term.

If he gets a next term.