Budget Blues And The Bushco Beat

The latest freeper fiction tells us that Dubya, apparently, is now going to try and recast himself as a fiscal conservative as opposed to an intolerant, hopelessly out of touch social conservative.

Uh huh…

This story from Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times tells us that…

Mr. Bush is headed into a spending battle with Congressional Democrats with the two branches of government as divided on the issue as they have been since the federal shutdown of 1995. The president has threatened to veto 10 of the 11 appropriations bills that have passed the House, as well as legislation expanding a popular children’s health care program. On Monday, he will step up the fight with a speech accusing Democrats of fiscal irresponsibility.

It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic...

That might not sound altogether unexpected, given that Democrats, whom Mr. Bush accuses of “working to bring back the failed tax-and-spend policies of the past,” now run Congress. But the president’s new tough talk on spending has also caught some fiscal conservatives in his own party off guard. After years lambasting Mr. Bush for letting government spending run out of control, they wonder what has gotten into him.

“I don’t know what kind of epiphany he had,” said Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, who fought on Capitol Hill to rein in the federal budget, to little avail. “I’m just glad he had it.”

It's called "losing Congress," brainiac...

Historians say there is nothing like a good spending fight with Congress to boost a president’s sagging fortunes. When Republicans shut down the government in late 1995, Mr. Clinton emerged the winner. So perhaps it should come as no surprise that, with just 16 months left in office and his approval ratings still crushed by the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush is putting up his fiscal dukes.

“In any kind of showdown with Congress, he does have the upper hand, because veto overrides are dauntingly difficult to achieve,” said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. “It could conceivably mean racking up some victories for a president who desperately needs them.”

Boy, talk about trying to milk something approximating success out of this nightmare of a presidency (waaay beyond shameless to see Bushco simpatico types hoping aloud for the miracle that will never come – I know Baker isn’t quite in the same clique as other Republicans, but I still object to his notion of Bush’s “victories” coming, as usual, at our expense).

And from Repug Mike Pence of Indiana comes this item…

Just how the spending impasse will be resolved is unclear. Both Democrats and White House officials say they want to avoid a shutdown. But conservatives are certainly happy to see their president taking on the fight.

“I think it will be good for the country, I think it will be good for the president and I think it will be good for the Republican Party,” Mr. Pence said. “I’m all for it. Let’s rock ’n’ roll.”

Yeah, that Mike Pence sure is a rocket scientist, isn’t he (you can read here about how Pence said that the place in Baghdad constructed for “Straight Talk” McCain’s photo op – in which Pence also participated – “was like a normal market in Indiana”).

Well, before we “boogie on down,” let’s hear once more the sad refrains we’ve come to know and detest under Bushco.

From here, let’s recall that…

Bush’s fiscal year 2002 budget and 10-year spending projections shove important working family programs aside to make room for the huge tax cut scheme—almost half of which would go to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers.

Where does the windfall for the wealthy come from? Bush shifts more than $526 billion away from the Medicare trust fund during the next 10 years. Lost interest payments to Medicare because of the move will mean an additional $172.5 billion loss to Medicare.

The Bush budget would cut spending on working family priorities—including health care, child care, workplace safety and other labor law enforcement, environmental protection, education-related programs and many other areas—by $15 billion in 2002 and at least $215 billion during the next decade when inflation and population growth are taken into account.

And from here, let’s recall that...

The poverty rate for 2003 is up 12.5 (percent, affecting) another 1.3 million Americans.

The 2003 and 2004 Bush budgets propose to freeze the Congregate Nutrition Program, which assists local soup kitchens and meals on wheels programs. With inflation, this proposal would mean at least 36,000 seniors would be cut from meals on wheels and congregate meals programs. Currently, 139,000 seniors are already on waiting lists for home-meal programs. His 2004 budget continues the freeze.

Bush’s 2003 Budget proposed a 9% ($476 million) cut to job training programs and a 2% ($8 million) cut to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Similarly, his 2004 budget proposes a $60 million cut to adult job training programs and
a total elimination of the Youth Opportunities Grants, which provide job training to younger workers.

And in January 2004 heading into the presidential election (here)…

$1.58 billion: Average amount by which the US national debt increases each day

$23,920: Amount of each US citizen's share of the national debt as of 19 January 2004

1st: The record for the most bankruptcies filed in a single year (1.57 million) was set in 2002

2.4 million: Number of Americans who have lost their jobs during the three years of the Bush administration

+6%: Percentage change since 2001 in the number of US families in poverty

Want more? Well, concerning the 2005 budget…

A Center on Budget and Policy Priorities summary of Congressional Budget Office figures finds that the budget plan would impose greater hardships on low-income families by allowing states to limit benefits and require families to pay higher Medicaid co-payments and premiums, a step which many states will be forced to do because of fewer federal dollars to help them meet Medicaid costs.

…

The budget bill would also cut federal student loan assistance by $12.7 billion over five years.

While the cuts in critical social programs are about $10 billion less than the $50 billion proposed when Congress began its budget process, many advocates for children and families are still worried about the harm to low-wage families and vulnerable children from the budget's cuts in health care, student loans, child support enforcement, aid for foster families, and child care assistance.

…

Education, child nutrition programs, job training and a host of other family services are funded through the discretionary part of the federal budget, requiring annual appropriations to be approved each year. In the last days of 2005, Congress passed and President Bush signed into law two spending bills which make major cuts in education and other public services.

And finally (here)…

From $4 million for an agriculture biotechnology program to $18 million for foreign-language assistance for small elementary and secondary schools and $489 million for congressionally earmarked Environmental Protection Agency projects, President Bush's fiscal 2006 budget plan calls for elimination of or drastic cuts in 154 programs.

The cuts would amount to $15.3 billion in savings over the fiscal 2005 budget as enacted by Congress, according to the administration. In addition, the president proposed major changes in 16 programs that his budget says would result in an additional $4.7 billion in gross savings.

The president's entire fiscal 2006 budget, not including a supplemental request for military costs related to Iraq and Afghanistan, amounts to $2.57 trillion.

I don’t know about you, but as I tried to digest all of this, I gave up “dancing to the beat” awhile ago.

And now, after all of this, we find that President Brainless is using his veto crayon as if it is suddenly a natural appendage.

Reading this litany of financial failure is about as depressing as hearing “Don’t Fear The Reaper,” “Free Bird” or “Stairway To Heaven” for the millionth time on one or any of the “classic rock” stations in these parts (in line with Mike Pence’s musical suggestion).

However, the notion that our preznit could suddenly become fiscally responsible (in line with the wish from Pence and Baker) does make me recall one of the most evergreen of anthemic rock songs played ad nauseum by millionaire, 50-or-60-something musicians, so corporate at this point in their careers that they even sponsor a ride in a Disney theme park.

And that of course would be “Dream On.”