Surprised none of our conservative friends have started a thread about the exciting new 2007 budget proposals from the No Exit Strategy President. So I'll start... Bush 2007 budget quietly omits impact of policies on deficit John Byrne Published: February 7, 2006 President George W. Bush's fiscal year 2007 budget quietly omits a table included in previous years which lays out the impact of the Administration's proposed policies on the deficit, RAW STORY has learned. The image above shows the table of contents for the summary tables of the 2006 and 2007 fiscal year budgets proposed by President Bush. The 2006 summary includes "S-12, Impact of Budget Policy"; the 2007 does not. All other categories have been retained. The missing table was first discovered by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Its omission -- a single table among thousands and thousands of pages that follow a standard format each year -- likely signals that the Administration is trying to keep the focus off the massive deficits which the United States will incur after 2010. Bloomberg News notes that under the 2007 budget, the federal deficit would decline until 2010 and then start rising at a remarkable rate. "If Congress makes Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, most of the impact won't be felt until after 2011, long after the president has left office," the financial news service writes. "Some of the tax reductions are due to expire at the end of 2008 and the rest in 2010." The loss of revenue between 2012 and 2016 is projected at $1.2 trillion. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in their analysis, posits that the economic cost could be greater after 2011. "Even these figures for 2011 significantly understate the long-term effect the President’s budget would have in swelling the deficit," the Center writes. "Several of the additional tax cuts the Administration is proposing — including costly proposals related to health savings accounts and to retirement and lifetime savings accounts — are designed such that their costs in the first five or ten years would be substantially smaller than their costs in subsequent decades, when they would lose huge amounts of revenue." http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Bush_2007_budget_quietly_omits_impact_0207.html I'm sure there's more...
Here's a good one... But among the losers were 141 government programs that Bush sought to sharply reduce or eliminate entirely. Almost one-third of the targeted programs are in education including ones that provide money to support the arts, vocational education, parent resource centers and drug-free schools. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/06/budget.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
All of which should be state or privately supported anyways. The federal government shouldn't have been funding those in the first place.
They should rename it "The Leave Everybody's Child Behind" Act - ha. You know, it doesn't really matter - most of these proposed cuts are so unbelievably unlikely to happen in an election year (sponsor a bill or vote to slash the 200$ SS death benefit i but keep estate taxes from hurting Paris Hilton = kiss your congressional parking space goodbye) that they're just purely rhetorical in nature. It's a total "cover your ass" by the Admin to offset on a miniscule scale the kazillion dollars it seeks to build more nuclear subs while skimping on body armor. And of course the programs that are on the chopping block generally don't even come close to the amount that is literally THROWN AWAY in wasteful agricultural subsidies and bridges to nowhere and useless missile defense shields that the current regime in charge in Washington favors - nor do they even begin to offset the gigantic fiscal colostomy caused by tax cuts. it's only useful as a study in contrasts - hardcore ideologues in the GOP hate social spending, regardless of its benefit or harm, and think that spending a whole bunch and more on other stuff is better - regardless of the fact that more stealth fighters aren't going to help too much in the war against IEDs or suicide bombers. It doesn't really even bear further analysis, the whole subject is so hackneyed and repetitive at this point.
Bush Plan Would Trim Survivor Benefits WASHINGTON - President Bush's budget calls for elimination of a $255 lump-sum death payment that has been part of Social Security for more than 50 years and urges Congress to cut off monthly survivor benefits to 16- and 17-year-old high school dropouts. If approved, the two proposals would save a combined $3.4 billion over the next decade, according to administration estimates. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208...HoUkmCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
Do you know what an unfunded mandate is? Does your state have the extra money to cover these cuts without raising taxes?
I guess none of you back slapping liberals noticed that tax receipts were UP last month and have been increasing? Oops. You all have a lot to learn about deficits, tax policy and the economy in general.
Inflation. Wow, that's fabulous. Inflation has been incredibly tame for a long time, despite your "guarentee [sic]".
Texxx, while it would fun to see you slipslide your way through a wrist-slitting roller coaster ride of quack-supply side pseudo-nomics, and your on-again, off-again attribution thereof to various elected leaders -- I'd prefer to spend time on more meritorious topics, such as Alchemy, Crop-circles, and Nazca lines.
You do realize that the bulk of public school funding does not come from the federal government, right?
