Credit: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...iJRJ8OVF&b=6228

 

 

The Era of Fiscal Responsibility is Over

 

by David Sirota, Christy Harvey and Judd Legum

 

 

In what may be the most deceitful budget submission in memory, President Bush claims that the U.S. can continue operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, fund a trillion-dollar tax cut, increase spending on defense, homeland security and counterterrorism, and launch a manned mission to Mars, while cutting the $521 billion deficit in half over the next five years. And astoundingly, even these depressing deficit projections are wildly unrealistic. They rely on a grab bag of gimmickry and distortion that, taken together, dramatically underestimate the scope of America's fiscal crisis. A more sober budget projection reveals that, five years from now, the budget deficit will be $477 billion ? almost exactly what it is today. When President Bush took office, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that from 2002-2011 there would be a total surplus of $5 trillion. Now, over the same period, the country is projected to amass a $4.3 trillion deficit ? a total deterioration of $9.3 trillion. And a new poll shows this is on America's mind ? 88% of Americans now say the federal deficit is either a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem.

 

 

TAX CUTS ARE TO BLAME FOR THE DEFICIT: The President continued his attempts to blame Congress for the massive deficits that he has racked up, but a new study by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) shows how ridiculous this argument is. All told, tax cuts account for 35% of the $9.3 trillion deterioration in the budget outlook since Bush took office ? more than even the post-9/11 defense and homeland security spending increases. That is almost $3.3 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years due to tax cuts. For a graphic representation of how specious the President's argument is, see this new American Progress graph. As NYT columnist Tom Friedman says, the Administration's total disregard of fiscal discipline has led to "budgets of mass destruction."

 

 

NOT INCLUDED ? FUNDING FOR IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN: The President's budget does not include any funding for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq or Afghanistan beyond September 30. The Administration used the same gimmick last year, then requested $87 billion in additional funds. It has already been reported that the Administration plans on requesting at least $50 billion in additional spending for Iraq and Afghanistan ? but only after the November elections.?

 

 

NOT INCLUDED ? EXTENDING THE TAX CUTS: The President has repeatedly called for his tax cuts, many of which are scheduled to expire over the next several years, to be made permanent. But his budget excludes the true cost of extending the tax cuts ? estimated to be $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years ? by only projecting the budget for the next five years instead of the traditional 10. In 2012, for example, the CBO estimates extending the tax cuts will cost $275 billion.

 

 

NOT INCLUDED ? FIXING THE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX: The alternative minimum tax (AMT) was designed to make sure that the very rich pay some taxes. But because the AMT is not indexed to inflation, absent reform, millions of middle-class families will be subject to the AMT and face tax hikes. Instead of dealing with the problem ? and protecting middle-class taxpayers over the long-term ? the President's budget includes a one-year, $23 billion "patch." The CBO estimates that over ten years, fixing the AMT would cost at least $469 billion.

 

 

PLAYING POLITICS WITH THE NUMBERS: The White House estimates a deficit of $521 billion for 2004 ? more than $40 billion dollars higher than the CBO estimates. The WP reports that, "budget aides in both parties noted that the higher number makes it easier to say the deficit would be cut in half in five years." Another explanation for inflating this year's figures: "A higher deficit forecast now could also help Bush show progress when his budget office delivers its updated projection in July." A White House official dismissed the criticism saying, "It's not at all unusual for projections to be different."

 

 

Some Details

 

 

President Bush will present his 2005 budget today. From environment to community development, agriculture to energy, the new budget proposes cuts in important programs. According to the LA Times, "Bush will call for the elimination of 64 government programs and holding the growth of non-security-related federal spending to a mere 0.5 percent, according to congressional officials familiar with administration plans." At the same time, tricky accounting means the cost for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ? sure to bring a hefty price tag ? aren't included. Here's what to look for:

 

 

MEDICARE HIGHER: It turns out the Medicare bill is going to cost a lot more than the White House previously let on, a fact the Administration knew months ago, but refused to acknowledge during the debate of the bill. According to the NYT, "Bush administration officials said Sunday that Congress had grossly underestimated the cost not only for prescription drug benefits, but also for private health insurance plans that would be offered to elderly people under the new Medicare law." When the legislation was passed in December, the price tag was put at "$395 billion in the decade from 2004 to 2013. On Thursday, the White House put the cost at $534 billion." That's over a third more than what Bush insisted was the upper limit.

 

 

DOESN'T WORK? FUND IT: The Bush budget will include a request for $9.14 billion for a missile defense system, "nearly 20 percent above last year's $7.6 billion for the agency." This is a giant expense for a system which is untested and relies on unproven technology. Last year, the GAO issued a report advising against moving forward with the program, saying "the planned system contains components ?that have not been demonstrated as mature and ready.'" American Progress fellow Admin Korb last week released a blueprint to revise and strengthen defense spending ? one that contrasts sharply with the White House's plans.

 

 

CUTTING AIDS FUNDING: In his last State of the Union, the President announced a bold new initiative to increase funding for HIV/AIDS by $15 billion over five years. However, the Administration requested only $2 billion in 2004. And in his 2005 budget, Bush will provide only "$2.7 billion for efforts to battle AIDS and other diseases in poor African and Caribbean countries."

 

 

CUTTING RURAL EDUCATION: Though the number has yet to be released, President Bush is "expected to propose cutting rural education." Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), warns "President Bush's proposed budget will likely not include enough money for?rural states to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind education law."

 

 

CUTTING ENERGY FUNDING: At a time when the U.S. is trying to ease dependence on foreign oil, the new budget actually will propose cutting money for energy and natural resources, slicing the energy budget by $100 million.

 

 

CUTTING AVIATION SAFETY FUNDING: At the same time the Administration announced plans to triple the FAA's workload, it is proposing a budget that slashes $471 million from the FAA budget ? "a 16% cut in spending on air-traffic-control equipment and facilities."

 

 

OTHER CUTS: Bush aides have claimed this is an anti-terrorism budget. It turns out it's also an anti-environment one. According to AP, Bush is proposing slashing the budget for the environment by $2.4 billion. Other cuts to watch for: The new budget will propose cutting community development by from $15 billion in 2004 to $13.2 billion in 2005. And while lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have called for increased spending for highways and mass transit, up to $375 billion over the next six years, Bush is expected to propose spending only $251 billion.

 

 

Politics Over National Security

 

 

Just one week after the White House flatly rejected calls for an independent commission to investigate the overhyping of WMD intelligence, President Bush has reversed course and now is expected to authorize an investigation. With evidence showing the White House was warned its WMD case was weak ? and new reports showing the Administration might have known there were no WMD in Iraq as early as May ? serious questions are being raised. Why did the White House abuse intelligence data, pressure intelligence agencies, and overhype the "imminent threat"? Were Congress and the American public misled by distorting the case for war?

 

 

PUTTING POLITICS OVER NATIONAL SECURITY: Once again, it appears the White House is making personal political considerations a priority over the national security of the United States. Specifically, CBS reports the White House will only support a commission that reports its findings after the presidential election, delaying a review critical to national security in order to minimize political fallout for the President. Additionally, CNN now reports the President will select members of the commission himself ? a departure from past precedent in which "the president names some members and bipartisan congressional leaders select others." The White House's posture is eerily reminiscent of its opposition and stonewalling of the commission investigating the causes of 9/11 ? creating delays that now threaten to postpone that commission's findings until after the election as well.?

 

 

KAY SAYS FAILURE REFUTES PRE-EMPTIVE DOCTRINE: Former CIA weapons inspector David Kay said the failure to find WMD dealt a serious blow to the Bush Administration's unilateralist foreign policy. He said without an investigation into the failure, "you certainly can't have a policy of preemption." With European allies angered at being misled - and editorial pages worldwide fueling the ire - Kay said it is necessary to make the international community "understand that we've taken the steps to be sure that we're correct and that, in fact, we're honest about what we're talking about."

 

 

WOLFOWITZ THE LATEST TO REVISE HISTORY: Last month, President Bush asked "what's the difference?" if WMD are not found in Iraq, despite his case for war being based on the imminent threat of Iraq's WMD. Now, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is echoing the same sentiment. The NYT reports Wolfowitz "said the Bush administration was justified in toppling Saddam Hussein, regardless of whether American intelligence before the war that Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons was proved wrong." See more on the history of misleading on Iraq.

 

 

MORE EVIDENCE OF OVERHYPING: The NYT reports, "Congressional officials involved in investigations of the C.I.A. and current and former administration officials, suggest that Secretary of State Colin Powell's case to the U.N. was largely based on limited, fragmentary and mostly circumstantial evidence." The WP reports on how far the White House went to politicize intelligence data in that one speech alone. VP Cheney's chief of staff Lewis Libby and other National Security Council staff "produced draft language for Powell -- including 45 pages on weapons of mass destruction. But when Powell's staff and intelligence analysts gathered at CIA headquarters to go through the material, controversy immediately erupted over some of the charges because the White House had changed so much from the CIA draft." In one instance, an entire claim "fell apart like a toothpick house" once Powell and his aides asked for the sourcing on the information.

 

 

ROBERTS STILL DOESN'T GET IT: Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), who has been derided for his partisanship and lack of independence and objectivity, is still refusing to acknowledge the pre-war abuse of intelligence by the White House. In attempting to fend off criticism of the Administration, he said "we're in danger now of seeing the politicization of the whole intelligence issue" ? a statement that refuses to acknowledge the real problem: the previous politicization of intelligence that led the U.S. to war. His posture patently ignores evidence that the White House applied political pressure on intelligence agencies to get the predetermined WMD assessments they desired.

..and that about says it all ladies & gentlemen.

 

whereas democrats used to be blamed for being the "tax & spend" party, Bush has decided it's better to "not tax but still spend".

 

:blink:

It keeps on amazing me how blind some people still are about this man.

Lcyberlina... maybe this people are benefiting under the Bush administration?

I think you know the answer to that... Nevertheless, there are some people that even though are not benefiting but rather being harmed by his administration, still support him. It baffles me. :pullhair

I bet you in 10 years if were in a worser (I don't doubt) situation... everybody will still be blaming Clinton...

 

 

"It's all Clinton's fault and those damn liberals."

Era of fiscal responsibility is dead. Vote libertarian.

I bet you in 10 years if were in a worser (I don't doubt) situation... everybody will still be blaming Clinton...

 

 

"It's all Clinton's fault and those damn liberals."

hahaha. Funny you should say that. My father-in-law blames Clinton and "the Liberals" of every catastrophe that happens to human race. :lol

 

He could make a link to the Democratic party and any calamity in a second...

Bush has taken the biggest surplus this country has ever seen and turned it into the biggest defecit we've seen and he claims the economy is doing good. :blink: :lol

 

I'm so mad and pi$$ed at Bush I don't grit my teeth any more I just shake my head and laugh.

 

 

 

Vote Edwards.

Social Security was increased. Sad. :confused

its not the biggest deficit if you look at it in terms of percent of GDP. Its only about 4.5 percent of GDP whereas it was above 6 percent in the Reagan administration and around 40 percent during WWII. Its still huge though but I just thought I'd add that.

umm.....

 

 

 

i love how the government can create their own economic rules......

 

 

 

oh hell we dont need as much revenue.

 

 

 

lets still spend like crazy.

 

 

 

there needs to be an amendment that states the budget HAS to be balanced every year.

 

 

this is getting riduclious.

 

 

 

what corporation would be allowed to do this?

its not the biggest deficit if you look at it in terms of percent of GDP. Its only about 4.5 percent of GDP whereas it was above 6 percent in the Reagan administration and around 40 percent during WWII. Its still huge though but I just thought I'd add that.

Thanks, that's nice to know, but its still too much friggin' money.