Bush's Budget

Nick Gillespie | February 2, 2004

Here's a cursory report on the budget Bush has submitted for fiscal year 2005. The main points: $2.4 trillion total, a $521 billion deficit, increases in defense and homeland security, talk of keeping spending down elsewhere.

It's tough to say what any of it means yet for a couple of reasons (though on its face it's already a fat budget): First, the devil is in the details and until one pores through the text, you can never be sure what's really in there. Second, by the time this thing gets drafted and redrafted and through Congress, it'll look a whole lot different (and a whole lot bigger).

This much seems certain: Bush's track record on spending and cutting back government is crap, even beyond dollars shoveled at defense and homeland security.

Comments

|2.2.04 @ 3:01AM|#

The president's plan for the 2005 budget year, which begins next Oct. 1, proposes spending $2.4 trillion for all government activities, up 3.5 percent from the current year.

This; after the huge increases we've already had! Instead there should be real cuts.
To slow the growth of government we have control the "entitlement programs", but instead:

the 10-year cost of the newly enacted Medicare prescription drug benefit program at $534 billion, far above the $400 billion figure Congress used in passing the measure two months ago.

We get the biggest increase in years! That's a whole NEW, unnecessary, entitlement program. Some conservative leadership! We have to eliminate, or at least cut this one way back. It's as if Gore had been elected with enough Dems to pass this huge increase in the size of the entitlements.

The budget documents said the major reasons for the discrepancy ($534 billion vs. $400 billion), were higher estimates for the number of participants in the program and new projections for health care price increases.

BS!! As if the real numbers, just now, became clear. More like; they lied to get it past conservative objections. Will they claim "faulty intelligence" on this one too?

Health care is too expensive, ie, more than a market price, because it is the most government regulated industry; from medical licensing to the tremendous FDA regulation costs in bringing drugs and medical equipment to market (not to mention the attendant and sad delays) and the costs of compliance for FDA medical equipment use regulations, etc. etc.

Also, part of the reason that prescription drug are so expensive is that a "prescription" from a doctor is required to obtain them. Drug prices drop of significantly when they are changed from "prescription to "over the counter".

Bush would boost military spending by 7 percent in 2005, but thatdoes not include the money needed to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For what?? From whom do we need to defend ourselves against that it requires a military so large? There are plenty of places in the world where our government has troops where they do nothing to enhance our security, to say the least.

|2.2.04 @ 3:51AM|#

"Our nation remains at war," Bush said in his budget message. "This nation has committed itself to the long war against terror".

Yeah sure. "Long" and expensive. If it were a real war he wouldn't be so sure that it would be; "long". There shouldn't even be a; War on Terror". Terror is not an enemy, it's a tactic. Of course, a war on a tactic is nebulous enough to give the government a sort of carte blanche.

"and we will see that war to its inevitable conclusion: the destruction of the terrorists."

Nonsense! A war on a tactic is an open ended war and one with out cessation.

Instead of a "War on Terror"; those who committed the 9/11 attack should be hunted down and killed so they can't do it again.

Also, if the government would rain in their hyper-interventionist foreign policy the evidence is that the risk of terrorist attacks would be greatly reduced.

|2.2.04 @ 4:37AM|#

Rick Barton for President.

|2.2.04 @ 5:17AM|#

Rick

An approximate end to the War on Terror has already been indicated by the president...and from the beginning: the Axis of Evil-- Iraq, Iran and N Korea.

One down, two to go.

Gene Berkman|2.2.04 @ 5:37AM|#

In 2002 I went to Young Republican hospitality suite at the California GOP convention. In a discussion with a paid staffer for YRNF, I pointed out that Bush had pushed through budget with record deficits approaching $200 billion. He said the problem was Democrat control of the Senate.

In the elections later that year, Republicans took control of the Senate, and increased their majority in the House. The result - annual deficits in excess of a half trillion dollars. Trusting the Republicans to cut spending has proved to be an illusion. Fiscal conservatives need to build a new political movement in opposition to the Bush league GOP.

|2.2.04 @ 11:11AM|#

Andrew,

The last thing the Bush administration will do is "take down" those regimes.

|2.2.04 @ 11:49AM|#

Andrew,

Those three regimes didn't assist with the 9/11 attacks and Iraq shouldn�t have been the target of US military aggression as it was not a threat to our security.

Does N. Korea even support terrorism in the conventional (and too narrow sense)? The Regime certainly terrorizes it's own citizens.

But, doesn't the Chinese commie government do so as well to it's own? And, they most certainly terrorize the people of Tibet in the occupation of that land as does the Israeli government use terror against innocent Palestinian civilians in the course of the occupation of Palestinian land. Of course, the Israeli government gets billions every year from our government. (hopefully, this will end) But; doesn't the Chinese government get tax money as well via the IMF and the World Bank? If so, this should end as well.

Including Iran as a member of the "axis of evil"
was sort of evil itself, as it hindered the movements for change there. The situation in Iran is more fluid, free and promising than in many lands with authoritarian regimes. Now, the Iranian regime does support Hezbollah which is a lot of things, including a political party and it does support the use the tactic of terror (by definition; I mean against civillians. ie. Hezbollah also drove the Israeli army out of Lebanon using terror type tactics but when the target is military and not civillian it should not be considered "terrorism") but, Hezbollah is not a threat to US security. BTW, if the Iranian people themselves make changes in Iran,as might well happen, Hezbollah will be weakened.


Terror (in the conventional and too narrow definition) is mostly employed by the weak as it was by the proto Israelis against the Brits, and now the Palestinians against the Israeli government's occupation of their land. The Chinese commies have used "fighting terror" as a pretext for cracking down on resistance to their ruthless occupation of Tibet: http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/1997/3/6_3.html

However, if the government's mission is to fight any terrorist group, the US can be sucked into all kinds of wars not in our interest.

Of course, not including government attacks on civilians in our definition of acts of terrorism also distorts the pursuit of justice. So, our operational definition of "terrorism" is both at once too narrow and too encompassing. (too encompassing, as is the case when the target of the act is military aggression rather than civilians. In this case the act shouldn't be considered "terrorism". The act should be considered an; "act of war" and/or >an act of resistance".)

|2.3.04 @ 2:39AM|#

Rick

I say that the WAR on Terror-- not terror as a tactic-- but this interventionist phase of American foreign policy-- will more or less end with the dissolution of the three regimes named (with perhaps Syria and some others for small change-- and the REAL un-named regime is Saudi Arabia).

I also believe that the US will act upon a nearly zero tolerance for political terrorism henceforward, not matter the cause...for example Tibetans. If Tibetans choose to employ terror tactics against Chinese immigrants (as surely they must be tempted) we are in a position to put powerful pressures on them...and we will.

N Korea and Iran are due for their come-uppance.

|2.3.04 @ 11:50AM|#

Andrew Lynch,

Hmmm... First Lady...Perhaps I should run an ad:

A libertarian bloger being pushed for president seeks to interview women desiring to be my, and the nation's First Lady. I'm seeking someone with super-model looks and intellectual interests who would enjoy quiet evenings around the fireplace in the Blue Room helping me decide which agencies to abolish next. So, if you think that helping me phone bureaucrats and telling them that they are fired and that they will have to go out and find honest work for a change sounds fun, and you're really cute; please email me today.

You don't think an ad like this is too presumptive, do you?

|2.3.04 @ 12:13PM|#

Andrew,

I think that both terror, and the "War on Terror" are both tactics. The latter, a political tactic that will likely do more harm than good. As I said before, instead, we should hunt down and kill those who committed the 9/11 attacks so they can't do it again.

Also, the government should reign in their hyper-interventionist foreign policy so that the risk of terrorist attacks will be reduced.

If the Tibetans choose to employ terror tactics against Chinese government troops in Tibet; I wish them luck.

|2.3.04 @ 12:32PM|#

Speaking of terrorists; these stories about Richard Perle's proximity to the Mujahedin-e-Khalq are surprising and concerning:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=1798

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=1804

|2.3.04 @ 12:59PM|#

Rick Barton for President AND First Lady.

|6.30.04 @ 2:30AM|#

erotikchat serioese sucht seitensprung - flirten verfuehren sex - rezepte schnelle kueche - liebes wallpapers desktopbilder - deutsche filmstars - downloaden von spielen - kindernamen babynamen - Hochzeitskarten Hochzeitsrede - route planen - routenplaner strassenplan - routenplanung strassenkarten - routeplanner stadtkarten - route strassenkarte - routenplan stadtkarte - routenfinder tourenplaner - routeplaner ortsplan

Hirsch Claudia|9.10.04 @ 2:11AM|#

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 212.253.2.205
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/21/2004 06:07:13
Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need.