NYT editorial: Budget Tough Talk
When it comes to the federal budget, the Bush administration wants to look both prudent and generous. It’s neither.
President Bush is threatening to veto spending bills over a $23 billion difference with Congress on proposed spending for 2008. After driving up the debt for six years, he is now insisting on $10 billion in net spending cuts across various federal departments — except the Pentagon. Congress wants $13 billion in new spending. Some of that could go for areas that Mr. Bush has neglected — aid to cities, job training and pollution control. And some could be used for increases in areas for which Mr. Bush has asked for more money, such as for veterans’ health care.
For all of Mr. Bush’s talk about fiscal prudence, $23 billion is only about 2.5 percent of the discretionary spending proposed by Congress for 2008. When it comes to really big money — for wars and tax cuts — Mr. Bush wants more, not less. He is demanding an additional $40 billion for the Pentagon, bringing the national defense budget to $504 billion — over half of Congress’s total discretionary budget.
As for the Bush tax cuts, in 2008 they will put some $100 billion into the pockets of the richest Americans. That giveaway will require the government to borrow to make up for the forgone revenue.
(The rest is here.)
President Bush is threatening to veto spending bills over a $23 billion difference with Congress on proposed spending for 2008. After driving up the debt for six years, he is now insisting on $10 billion in net spending cuts across various federal departments — except the Pentagon. Congress wants $13 billion in new spending. Some of that could go for areas that Mr. Bush has neglected — aid to cities, job training and pollution control. And some could be used for increases in areas for which Mr. Bush has asked for more money, such as for veterans’ health care.
For all of Mr. Bush’s talk about fiscal prudence, $23 billion is only about 2.5 percent of the discretionary spending proposed by Congress for 2008. When it comes to really big money — for wars and tax cuts — Mr. Bush wants more, not less. He is demanding an additional $40 billion for the Pentagon, bringing the national defense budget to $504 billion — over half of Congress’s total discretionary budget.
As for the Bush tax cuts, in 2008 they will put some $100 billion into the pockets of the richest Americans. That giveaway will require the government to borrow to make up for the forgone revenue.
(The rest is here.)
Powered by Blogger
2 Comments:
It’s a two-sided coin. On one side is Revenues and the other is Spending.
On the Revenue side, the NYT editorial cites the tax cuts for the “rich”, but misses the impact of tax subsidies … many times initiated by lobbyists. PBS had an interesting story last night on the impact citing for example that the drug industry has over 1,200 lobbyists in Washington that successfully got the Senate to maintain existing practices earlier this month.
On the Spending side, one area of non-defense spending that should be addressed is federal assistance to local law enforcement. The NYT may have missed this morning’s Washington Post story :
WASHINGTON -- The number of violent crimes in the United States rose for a second straight year in 2006, marking the first sustained increase in homicides, robberies and other serious offenses since the early 1990s, according to an FBI report to be released Monday. [snip] … That follows an increase of 2.3 percent in 2005, which was the first significant increase in violent crime in 15 years. [snip] …critics say the increase has been spurred by declines in assistance from the federal government, including more than $2 billion in cuts in Justice Department law enforcement programs since 2002.
"After years of driving crime rates down, we're now in reverse gear," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., chairman of a Senate crime subcommittee. "It's time to get back to crime-fighting basics -- that means more cops on the streets, equipped with the tools and resources they need to keep our neighborhoods safe."
Here’s the link to the Bill Moyers’ Journal program that was aired last Friday. From the transcript, here are just two snippets :
-- “the energy bill passed in 2005. In the four years before the legislation was signed into law energy companies spent about eight hundred and fifty million dollars buying access to politicians through lobbying and campaign contributions. But that was nothing compared to what the energy companies got back - a whopping twenty six billion dollars in subsidies from taxpayers.
-- Forty-three percent of the members of Congress who left office between 1998 and 2004 went on to become lobbyists earning salaries approaching, or exceeding $1 million.
Is it any wonder why the pharmaceutical industry has been able to fend off proposals to import drugs or allow Medicare to negotiate prices … according to SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (Senate floor, May 2, 2007) : Since 1998, the pharmaceutical industry has spent over $900 million on lobbying activities; $900 million since 1998. That is more than any other industry in the United States of America. It is hard to believe, but there are now over 1,200 prescription drug lobbyists right here in America,
Subsidies are not only a Federal problem, but also a problem here in Minnesota. Governor Tim Pawlenty was asked yesterday on MPR about subsidies for the ethanol industry. Ever the politician, Pawlenty’s response was that we have a commitment that was made and we should keep it … wait a second, the reason for the subsidy was to develop an industry … today the ethanol industry has plenty of investors with 188 facilities nationwide in production or construction and with over 200 in the planning stages … Minnesota does not need to subsidize this any further … especially since the US Government in that same 2005 energy bill (cited above) included a renewable fuel standard that amounts to an ethanol tax break — now at 51 cents per gallon. Read more of my comments on Ethanol Tax Subsidies on my Minnesota Central blog .
Post a Comment
<< Home