bush's FY 2006 budget

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop btw, rick.. i'm too tired to look for a link right now, but i remember reading that he actually cut the budget for star wars. heh, i think it was a mighty drop of $3 billion though (from $19 billion to begin with), so take that for what it's worth - not much.

Then I stand, make that sit, corrected. Given the war lobby is almost as strong as the agriculture lobby, I doubt any of the proposed cuts are likely to survive regardless.

[bishop]

eh... it's just one paltry piece of the bigger puzzle... he's still increasing military spending by a sizeable amount. star wars is just one project. it's still getting around $16 billion or so..

i really hope that if there are any decent republicans left, they revolt and break away from bush. as someone who studies economics and finance, or at least as someone who actually understands this stuff, what bush is doing is unconscionable. even more amazing is how americans could support him for this.. looks like bush will go down in history as being the president responsible for bringing down the superpower, rather than the terrorists.

[Richard 23]

Has any come across a good detailed overview of the individual cuts made by the budget? I can only find laments that apply to some individual sectors being nailed. I looked over summaries in the budget documents and got the general idea, but was more interested in specific cuts that I can relate to.

The top level of the summary shows: Pentagon +5%, Homeland Security: +3%, Everything Else: -1%.
Within Everything Else was: Agriculture: -9.6%, Defense: +4.8%, Energy: -2.0 %, Housing & Urban Development: -11.5 %, Transportaion: -6.7 %, Homeland:+1.2 %, EPA: -5.6 %, among other items.

Miscellanous details have turned up, but not in single summary.
I hope the following are accurate, but it ain't much. Sorry.

There are cuts to job training programs (including for veterans).
Thankfully there are plenty of openings in the military.

There are cuts to housing and energy assistance programs for the poor.

EPA Funding: Under Clinton funding for clean water was upwards of $4 billion.
Bush prefers: $350 million. How much is clean water worth?
What level of spending would be appropriate? I don't know.

Amtrak: cut to zero.

Has anyone dared suggest eliminating the Department of Homeland Security? As far as I know, it still hasn't done a thing to secure our ports, borders, potential targets, etc. All I recall reading about was a color coded terror alert system which has been deafeningly silent since the last U.S. election. One thing it has secured is 3% more of the budget, which I think might be better spent on OTHER. So maybe the new nominee should look for some other job in our vibrant economy, like so many of us.

I realize that sounds snarky. Please let me know why it's so important because I honestly don't know. Thanks!

[bishop]

here it is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/


the graph on the overview page is something else.. they're publishing flat out lies at this point. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...overview-1.jpg

and then comparing it to the information cato's had published for a couple years now. http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal_...factsfigs.html


from the experts: http://www.cato.org/new/02-05/02-07-05r.html

WASHINGTON--President Bush today sent his fiscal year 2006 budget proposal of more than $2.5 trillion to Congress. The proposal includes cuts to 150 government programs. Cato experts William Niskanen, Stephen Slivinski, and Chris Edwards offer their comments on the budget below. William Niskanen, Cato chairman and former member of the Council of Economic Advisers (1981-1985): "The proposed budget is tight only for domestic discretionary programs other than homeland security -- less than 19 percent of total outlays in fiscal year 2005." "President Bush also proposed to reduce the deficit by half last year. In the meantime, the deficit increased by an estimated $15 billion." "Interest payments on the federal debt increase at a 12 percent annual rate. This is the most rapidly increasing component of the federal budget and provides no current government services." "The defense budget includes a lot of money for high-tech weapons that would make no contribution to combatting terrorists or insurgents. At the same time, the budget does not propose any increase in Army or Marine Corps personnel." ======== Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies: "The budget proposes to cut 150 programs, but the fine print shows that these cuts will only reduce 2006 spending by 0.8 percent." "The administration is still not serious about cutting spending: 2 of the 5 pages of the budget overview tout 37 new spending initiatives." "The Bush budget underscores how out-of-control federal spending is. The budget is being billed as the tighest yet, but overall spending is projected to rise 3.6 percent in 2006 even without further money for Iraq." "Despite his promises, Bush's budget does not realistically cut the deficit in half by 2009."

[bishop]

here we go.. set to top last year's budget deficit by at least $46 billion. that's assuming that he gets all the budget cuts he put in his budget - which isn't likely to happen.

assuming that he does cut the deficit to $390 billion, we'd end up having a net deficit of $472 billion.

way to countinue the downward trend into bankruptcy assholes (bush and his merry followers).

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html