Bush's Budget Expected to Be Aggressive

[Neil D]

Wed Jan 12, 9:56 AM ET

By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer

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 (news - web sites)'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."

Budget and appropriations committee aides say Bush's budget -- to be presented Feb. 7 -- will be aggressive.

Bush will impose "very, very strong discipline" in his 2006 budget, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (news - web sites) yesterday. "That discipline will be there big-time."

Said Gregg: "Clearly, there is not going to be a lot of growth."

[:"blue"] Congratulations, America. 51% of you voted for this. You veterans can expect a "severe, severe" cut in your benefits, and that is your thanks for saving our country from terrorism. We appreciate you, at least 51% of you. [sarcasim intended] [/]

Washington Post

[Dr. Shane]

Well it is about time. This is what I voted for in the 2000 election.

Now sit back and see the hypocracy of the Left. First the critisize Bush for spending too much and now they will critisize him for cutting too much. Can anyone say "Bush Hate"? He just can't do anything to please them.

[Nicodema]

Shane, I don't think the problem is whether he is spending too much or too little, by itself in a vacuum. I think the real issue is, WHEN he is spending, WHAT is he spending it ON, and WHEN he is freezing, WHAT is getting frozen as opposed to what ELSE.

It's not hypocrisy. It's differing priorities.

As you've pointed out, I don't know much about economics. But whenever something is squeezed somewhere, it has to bulge elsewhere. Squeezing entitlements out of the federal budget forces them to "bulge" on the state level. This risks the rise of state taxes; in turn, Bush is pushing for the federal tax to flatten. I *hope* (but don't KNOW) this will end up evening things out for the average wage-earner -- we might end up paying more state taxes but less federal, for example. I don't know.

All I know is that whatever he does, someone else will end up undoing. Of that we can be sure. None of this stuff is going to last any longer than the guy in office does. This ain't Dwight or Teddy R's America.

[Dr. Shane]

Actually the Bush is talking about slowing down growth so the cuts he is talking about are not real cuts.

Here is an example of a real cut. This year we spend $100 million in program X. Next year we spend $90 million in program X.

Here is an example of slowing growth. This year we spend $100 million in program X. Program X is to increase in spending 5% each year. However next year instead of spending $105 million in program X we will spending only $102 million so that means we cut the rate of growth 3 percentage points.

If we keep the growth of the federal governement to same or just above the inflation rate, there should be no "pinch" and thus nothing that state budgets need to pick up. There should be an area betwen the rate of inflation (1.8%) and the rate the economy is growing (3.5%) where we can maintain government growth.