January 12, 2005

LET'S SEE THEM PUT NO MONEY WHERE THEIR MOUTHS ARE:

Bush's Budget Expected to Be Aggressive: Program Cuts and Spending Freezes for 2006 Are Intended to Trim Record Deficit (Jonathan Weisman, January 12, 2005, Washington Post)

The Bush administration is preparing a budget request that would freeze most spending on agriculture, veterans and science, slash or eliminate dozens of federal programs, and force more costs, from Medicaid to housing, onto state and local governments, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.

The White House also plans to reintroduce measures to stem the growth of federal health care and other entitlement programs that rise automatically each year based on set formulas, they said.

The tough budget for the fiscal year that begins in October is intended to signal President Bush's commitment to reining in the record federal deficit, and to satisfying conservative critics who note spending has soared since Bush took office.

"From a thematic standpoint, the goal is to reduce the deficit in half over four years, and you can't reduce the deficit if you don't reduce the growth of entitlements," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-N.H.). "If the president sends up an aggressive budget, I'll be certainly receptive to it, and I think the Congress will be, too."


You and who else? Nothing seems more certain to shut up Congressional Republicans, who claim to want fiscal responsibility, than a fiscally responsible budget.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 12, 2005 1:28 PM
Comments

Or all the people claiming to be socially liberal, but fiscally conservative, whatever that means.

Posted by: David Cohen at January 12, 2005 2:15 PM

How long will it take for the MSM to shift gears from complaining about deficit spending to complaining about the cuts?

Posted by: Gideon at January 12, 2005 2:51 PM

Glad to see that while WWIV is churning out veterans, many maimed and disabled, the Bush budget aims at not expanding an already parsimonious budget for those who have actually earned the $ that would be spent on them. Don't worry, Tommy and Joe are used to the treatment. Oh, don't forget to bang the drums for more volunteers.

Posted by: jim burke at January 12, 2005 3:08 PM

About that long.

Posted by: joe shropshire at January 12, 2005 3:26 PM

Furthering Joe's point:

Judging by the time stamps, about 17 minutes.

Posted by: James Haney at January 12, 2005 3:30 PM

Frank Gaffney has more on the lean Bush military budget here.

It's great to learn we're cutting the truly wasteful spending, but when you say help is on the way, you'd better make sure help really is on the way.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at January 12, 2005 4:36 PM

Matt:

Why?

Posted by: oj at January 12, 2005 6:19 PM

OJ:

Let's turn that around: Why not? Bush won one election by promising to aid the state of the military, and the other with martial appeals (I'm not saying he would have lost without these things; only noting campaign tactics).

We have been quite successful in Iraq while utilizing a relatively small percentage of our economic strength on the military, but of course if we ever expand our options (i.e., we "do" Iran or Syria or North Korea -- heck, let's add Cuba, since I'd personally enlist for a chance to whack Castro), then we may need the classic "two-fronts-at-once" military.

I think Gaffney lists some good reasons to be concerned. One item possibly affected by the cuts: national missile defense.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at January 12, 2005 10:31 PM

Matt:

We're spending multiples more than he said he would when he campaigned in 2000. We can certainly affird significant cuts, especially with the war won.

Posted by: oj at January 12, 2005 10:37 PM
« BIGGER BUNDLE | Main | COUNT...COUNT...COUNT...STOP! »