| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Mon Feb 06, 2006 6:50 pm Bush 2007 Budget Proposes $2.7 Trillion in Spending |
|
| Quote: | Bush 2007 Budget Proposes $2.7 Trillion in Spending
WASHINGTON � President Bush's 2007 budget proposes spending more than $2.7 trillion, showering big increases on defense and homeland security and a smattering of other favored programs such as scientific research, education and energy.
At the same time, Bush's blueprint being submitted to Congress on Monday proposes shrinking or eliminating 141 programs while achieving $36 billion in Medicare savings over the next five years.
The plan for the budget year that begins Oct. 1 lays out a path to achieving two of the president's chief domestic goals: making permanent his first-term tax cuts, which are set to expire after 2010, and cutting the deficit in half by 2009, the year Bush will leave office.
Details about the plan come from public statements, such as Bush's State of the Union address last week, and interviews with officials familiar with the budget proposal who spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want pre-empt the president's announcement Monday.
The budget's arrival on Capitol Hill will set off months of intense debate, made even more contentious by congressional elections in November in which Democrats want to wrest congressional control from the Republicans.
While Congress is expected to reshape Bush's proposals significantly, Republicans voiced support for the blueprint's objectives.
"The American people know that our government's too big and it spends too much. And they expect Congress to do something about it," newly elected House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Democrats sought to portray it as an election-year campaign document rather than an honest effort to deal with exploding deficits.
The budget proposal's release comes only weeks before the national debt will hit the current limit of $8.18 trillion, requiring Congress to vote for an increase to keep the government operating.
"This budget is just detached from reality. The debt is exploding and the president isn't facing up to it," Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, said in an interview Sunday.
The administration has said the deficit for this year will top $400 billion, compared with last year's $319 billion. The costs of fighting in Iraq and rebuilding the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast have pushed government spending higher than anticipated.
The administration said last week that it would submit a supplemental spending request for an additional $18 billion for hurricane relief for the current budget year, bringing total spending in response to the storms to more than $100 billion.
The administration also will seek an additional $120 billion to help pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year and the early part of 2007. That increase is on top of a nearly 5 percent rise in Pentagon spending to $439.3 billion in Bush's budget.
The Homeland Security Department is in line for about a 5 percent increase in its current operating budget, not counting the costs of hurricane relief. To offset these costs, the White House is seeking to double a passenger security fee from the current $2.50 per flight to $5, a proposal Congress rejected last year.
To achieve the goal of halving the deficit by 2009, the administration again wants to put a squeeze on the one-sixth of the budget that funds the nonsecurity operations of government -- everything from running the national parks to prosecuting criminals.
In this area, the Bush budget calls for the elimination or reduction of more than 140 programs at a savings of $14 billion. These programs, Bush said in his State of the Union address, "are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities."
In last year's budget, Bush sought to curb 154 such programs for savings of $15.8 billion; Congress agreed to about two-fifths of those cuts.
One proposal would eliminate the $107 million Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides food to low-income mothers with young children and for the elderly poor.
Defenders of this program and others at risk are certain to fight aggressively.
Even programs not targeted for elimination are subject to tight budgets. That includes such previously favored agencies as the National Institutes of Health.
Bush is proposing to save $36 billion over the next five years by trimming growth in Medicare, the government's medical insurance program that covers 41 million older people and the disabled.
The spending reductions would not affect the new prescription drug program that just started last month, but the White House wants to trim $20 billion over the next five years in payments to hospitals and other institutions such as skilled-nursing facilities.
The Medicare reductions are expected to draw determined opposition in Congress, which just approved a reduction of $4.7 billion in spending for Medicaid; that was less than half the amount sought by the administration. Medicaid is a joint state-federal program that provides health care for the poor.
Bush's budget does contain some winners outside of defense and homeland security. Set for higher spending, as highlighted in the State of the Union address, are programs to address soaring energy costs, rising medical bills and increased global competition from countries such as China and India.
Bush is promoting his "American Competitiveness Initiative," which would extend an expired business tax break for research and development, double the government's commitment to basic scientific research and train thousands of new science and math teachers.
For health care, Bush wants to expand current health care savings accounts that provide tax advantages for the uninsured to buy health coverage.
His energy initiative seeks, by 2025, to replace three-fourths of the oil the United States now imports from the Middle East, partly by boosting ethanol production.
Missing from this year's budget is the president's big proposal from last year to overhaul Social Security by creating private accounts. The idea went nowhere in Congress.
Instead, the president this year is calling for creation of a bipartisan commission to study ways to deal with the exploding costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Source |
| Quote: | Bush's 2007 Budget Wants Boost in Defense Spending
WASHINGTON � President Bush sent Congress a $2.77 trillion budget plan on Monday that would boost spending in the war against terror but squeeze a wide swath of other government programs to deal with exploding budget deficits.
Bush, hoping to get his domestic agenda back on track after a year of political setbacks, unveiled a budget blueprint with a heavy emphasis on keeping the country strong militarily. It would also make his first-term tax cuts permanent, at a cost of $1.4 trillion over 10 years, and still achieve his goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009.
Achieving these two goals constrained Bush's efforts to offer new initiatives although he did put forward a few mostly modest programs to deal with American anxieties about global competition, soaring energy costs and skyrocketing medical bills.
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.
"My administration has focused the nation's resources on our highest priority � protecting our citizens and our homeland," Bush said in his budget message.
Bush's spending proposals, contained in four massive volumes featuring green and beige covers, are for the 2007 budget year that begins next Oct. 1. The $2.77 trillion in spending would be up by 2.3 percent from projected spending of $2.71 trillion this year.
The administration in its budget documents said the deficit for this year will soar to an all-time high of $423 billion, reflecting increased outlays for the Iraq war and hurricane relief.
But the administration says the deficits will be on a declining path over the next five years, which would allow the president to achieve his goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, the year he leaves office. However, the deficit of $354 billion that the administration is projecting for 2007 probably will be higher because the budget at present only contains $50 billion in spending for Iraq, White House Budget Director Joshua Bolten told reporters.
Bush is also seeking savings by trimming the growth of spending in Medicare, the government's giant health care program for the elderly and disabled, by $35.9 billion over five years. The reductions, which are certain to face stiff opposition in Congress, would among other things reduce inflation adjustments for hospitals, nursing homes, home health care providers and hospices.
"These are not cuts," Bolten said of Bush's Medicare plans. "These are modest reductions in the rate of growth."
Democrats attacked what they said were Bush's skewed priorities. They said he was trying to impose austere budgets that will harm programs for the poor while protecting tax cuts Democrats said were going primarily to the wealthy.
They also charged that Bush was understating future budget deficits by leaving out major items such as the true costs of the Iraq war and a long-term fix to keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting more middle class taxpayers.
"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, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. "The result will be more debt passed on to our children."
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that the budget was "filled with pages of giveaways to special interests and cuts to those who can least afford it."
Responding, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said, "The president is focused on making sure that we keep our economy growing, and that means keeping taxes low."
Republicans in Congress expressed support for the spending document, which will kick off months of debate likely to last until the next budget year begins in October and perhaps beyond.
"We have to face up to this fiscal reality that this baby boom generation is going to retire soon and we need to do something about it," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H.
In addition to trimming Medicare, other proposed Bush savings in so-called mandatory spending, because the payments are set in law for all who are eligible, include $4.99 billion in changes in farm commodity programs, and $16.7 billion in reforms of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the government program that backs private pensions.
Bush's budget also projects receiving $4 billion over the next five years for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, something Congress has repeatedly refused to allow.
The biggest spending increase would go to the military, a 6.9 percent rise to $439.3 billion for 2007, a figure that does not include the costs of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration said last week it will ask Congress for an additional $120 billion to cover fighting for the rest of this year and the early part of 2007 while seeking another $18 billion in hurricane relief this year.
While the Department of Homeland Security would also see an increase for 2007, nine of the 15 Cabinet agencies would see outright cuts in their discretionary spending for next year with the biggest percentage reductions occurring in the departments of Transportation, Justice and Agriculture.
Bush is proposing to continue a serious squeeze on the one-sixth of the budget outside of defense and homeland security that is subject to annual appropriations. This year he would cut spending in this area by 0.5 percent.
To achieve this goal, Bush is seeking savings of $14.5 billion by eliminating and drastically scaling back 141 government programs. Last year, he targeted 154 such programs and won two-fifths of the spending cuts he requested, amounting to $6.5 billion in savings.
Even programs not targeted for elimination are subject to tight budgets including previously favored agencies such as the National Institutes of Health which would see its spending essentially frozen at this year's level.
Robert Eckel, president of the American Heart Association, said that it was a disappointment for the 71 million Americans who suffer from heart disease, stroke and other cardiovascular disease that Bush's budget has placed funding for programs "that help prevent, treat and cure these diseases on the back burner of his domestic agenda."
Bush's proposed Medicare reductions are expected to draw determined opposition in Congress, which just approved a package of $39 billion in cuts in benefit programs over five years, including $6.4 billion in reductions in the growth of Medicare and $4.7 billion in cuts in the growth of Medicaid, the joint state-federal program that provides health care to the poor.
The spending plan does contain some winners in the domestic arena.
Set for higher spending, as highlighted in Bush's State of the Union address, are programs to address soaring energy costs through development of alternative fuels, rising medical bills through expanded health savings accounts and global competition through a new "American Competitiveness Initiative."
That initiative would extend an expired business tax break for research and development, double the government's commitment to basic scientific research and train thousands of new science and math teachers.
Instead of pushing last year's Social Security overhaul proposal, the president is calling for creation of a bipartisan commission to study ways to deal with soaring spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. However, his budget does include a projection that creation of private investment accounts for younger workers, the heart of his plan, would cost $712 billion over the next decade.
Source |
| Quote: | Bush's Budget Requests Tax Reductions, Breaks
WASHINGTON � President Bush asked lawmakers Monday to expand health savings accounts and preserve temporary tax reductions that evaporate at the end of the decade.
The entire package of tax proposals contained in the budget blueprint would cut more than $1.7 trillion from money expected to flow from taxpayers to the federal government over the coming decade.
The single biggest piece of the recommendation cements tax breaks passed earlier in Bush's presidency, reducing taxes $1.4 trillion over a decade.
"My administration has responded to major economic challenges by following this vital principle: the American economy grows when people are allowed to keep more of what they earn, to save and spend as they see fit," the president said in a message transmitted with the budget.
Democrats have criticized the effect that some of those tax cuts have had on federal budget deficits. "We're not doing future generations any favors if we cut taxes in a way that busts the budget," said Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee.
Bush did not propose a permanent fix for the alternative minimum tax, intended to stop the wealthy from evading taxes but increasingly impinging on the middle class.
The tax proposals touch on charitable giving, education, energy and pensions and include a recommendation that a temporary business research and development credit become permanent, as well as bigger tax breaks for small business investments.
The few new initiatives aim to moderate the rising cost of health care and would reduce taxes about $156 billion over the coming decade.
Those ideas include a broad, $91 billion expansion of health savings accounts, which let workers save and spend money tax-free for medical needs if they purchase high-deductible health insurance policies.
The White House said savings accounts, when used with high-deductible health insurance policies, give users more control over health care spending.
"This combination will also instill a stronger element of cost consciousness among health care purchasers, thereby working to slow the rise in health care inflation for all Americans," the president said in the budget.
To encourage more people to use the savings accounts and purchase high-deductible health policies, the president would establish additional tax breaks for individuals who set up the accounts on their own instead of through employers. He would also make the accounts easier to keep when changing jobs or moving to a new state, among other incentives.
Other proposals would simplify two widely used refundable tax credits, the child tax credit and earned income tax credit. Bush also outlined initiatives to reduce the annual gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.
The Treasury Department said it will continue to study recommendations made by a presidentially appointed panel on tax reform, which issued a report last year on ideas to make tax laws fairer and simpler.
The Treasury Department also announced it wants to establish a new office to study the effect tax proposals could have on future economic growth. That kind of analysis, known as dynamic analysis, has met with some criticism in Congress.
Source |
Last edited by Republican_Man on Mon Feb 06, 2006 6:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Feb 06, 2006 6:54 pm |
|
This is definitely a step forward--but that's all it is: a step forward.
This President, sadly, has failed when it comes to spending. He's brought us into the worst deficit in recent times for this country and has been spending like a drunk man on crack, pardon the expression.
But now he's doing some good things with this budget, proposing cuts and drawbacks and slower rates where necessary, slowing the rate of growth, but still increasing defense spending.
They're good things, what's proposed in this budget--but not good enough. My generation is faced with paying for this deficit, and we have to do more in cuts, while still keeping taxes low, as the President wants.
I'm generally pleased with this new budget, although I do believe that it needs to go further.
Oh, and let me clear something up, cutting through the spin. The decrease in spending on Medicaid and Medicare is not a cut, but rather a decrease in the increased spending rates towards these programs. It's cutting the rate of spending going towards these programs, NOT these programs themselves, contrary to what the democrats are trying to make it seem.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
teya
Commander
Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 423
|
| Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:23 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Oh, and let me clear something up, cutting through the spin. The decrease in spending on Medicaid and Medicare is not a cut, but rather a decrease in the increased spending rates towards these programs. It's cutting the rate of spending going towards these programs, NOT these programs themselves, contrary to what the democrats are trying to make it seem. |
Yep, which means that those of us who *provide* health care will have to eat the increased costs next year. Not that that matters, though. After all, we're supposed to take care of people out of the goodness of our hearts.
-------signature-------
Resume your disorder.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:24 pm |
|
Entitlement spending decreases is necessary, IMO. It's not cutting it, just slowing the rate of growth. Nothing wrong with that.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:29 pm |
|
We are going to spend health care stuff no matter who is president.
|
|
|
Superman
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 06 Dec 2003
Posts: 10220
|
| Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:32 pm |
|
As an Englishman, thank goodness we have the NHS over here.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:33 pm |
|
And it's going to increase as well (healthcare spending). So a reduction in the rate of growth is necessary. We need to cut back on some things, and slowing the rate of growth in an area such as this is wise and a good thing to do.
And Superman, we don't rely on the government for our healtchare here (at least to such an extent), and so spending rate decreases aren't nearly that big of a deal.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Superman
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 06 Dec 2003
Posts: 10220
|
| Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:39 pm |
|
I was just kidding, mate. The NHS isn't much good to be honest. The people who work for it (the doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants) are all very good people who work hard, but bureaucracy is killing it.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:41 pm |
|
Exactly why I prefer more privatized healthcare, like we have in America 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Superman
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 06 Dec 2003
Posts: 10220
|
| Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:43 pm |
|
I agree. I should have put a smilie next to my NHS post. I have made provisions for healthcare. With anything in life, I don't want to have to depend on government and bureaucrats. I'm not naive enough to believe that if I pay my taxes, I'll get a nice pension and regular healthcare when I retire. If you want something done properly, you have to take responsibility and make provisions.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:26 pm |
|
It's interesting though how the U.S. has a private healthcare system, yet the government still ends up paying for parts of it.
You know your country has been spending too much when . . . you consider $2.7 trillion to be a cutback. I don't think I could ever imagine that much money; it's an inconceivable sum. And that's it, really. It's a theoretical number . . . the fact that the entire economy runs upon the mutual agreement of an arbitrary value boggles the mind. That, and the additional fact that we can argue over moral issues or even go to war with each other, but in the end we still agree that a worthless piece of paper happens to have a monetary sum of a dollar. . . .
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:03 am |
|
lol. Well, the US is proof that, as my Global Studies teacher said last year, that "capitalism is flexible," contrary to the thoughts of Karl Marx on the system. It's proof that you can still be capitalist and have most things in the hands of private citizens yet still have some socialistic programs, as minor as they may be.
It's quite hard to find a pure-bred economic system on Earth now, anyways, though. I mean, you can't really call China a completely communist country when they're opening things up, etc. The only real, pure communist country left, I would argue, is N. Korea, and maybe Cuba (well, I might argue Cuba's probably right there too). Not that the other countries aren't communist countries, but they're not pure. It's difficult to have a pure system now adays.
But yeah, I know. It's sickening that we're looking at $2.7 trillion and saying it's a cutback on other things, but that's how it is. It's an improvement from previous spending over the last couple years...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
