Posted By MJ
Now that everyone agrees that Social Security is not in a crisis situation, let us have a discussion about the president, his budget and SS. Oh yeah, let’s not forget Iraq- for some reason it’s missing in the budget.
President Bush has submitted one of the most incomplete budget proposals ever. But, you know what, no one seems to care. And it really doesn’t matter much anyway, because after lawmakers finally pass the fiscal budget it will look nothing like the incomplete version that the Bush administration submitted- at least I hope so. So is the budget just a bargaining tool laid out on the table? Or is this budget a real instrument in which to measure the fiscal responsibility of this administration? Incomplete or not, it does lead to a very provoking question, such as: How serious are we supposed to take his proposal when it leaves out things as serious as Iraq and SS, and not to mention the affect it will have on the poor?
Bush’s budget proposal leaves the nation $427 billion in the red. Though, this number does not include the cost of Iraq, another $80 billion, and the cost of phasing out SS which pushes the deficit to well over $600 billion. This calculates by far into the largest deficit in the history of the Union.
Think what you will about this president and his fiscal conservatism, but the truth is Bush took the largest surplus in the history of America and turned it into the largest deficit known to mankind. Some say that this is a wartime budget and times are “tight.” Well, then, include the wartime expenses into the budget and I’ll agree 100 percent. Don’t spit on me and tell me it’s raining.
Republicans say that Bush inherited an economy already in recession and that he is managing it as best as he can during war. Yes, that full month of December 2000 and that half a month of January 2001 were a slowdown period, but hardly did Bush inherit an economy on the verge of bankruptcy or even deficit spending. And besides, in 1993 Clinton inherited an economy in far worse shape, with extreme budget deficits than did Bush in 2001, and Clinton managed to be fiscally responsible enough to change how the government did business as well as generate a surplus.
I think if Bush were serious about phasing out SS he would include the costs of that plan in the budget. Can anyone anyways please tell me the Bush plan for phasing out SS? Because I’m not aware that he has submitted any plans. He has merely only spoken about doing so and changes figures on a daily basis. And then when anyone speaks out against his so-called plan they are called obstructionists and un-patriotic. But, there is no plan, only speeches and phrases in speeches that refer to changing SS, and in some cases ending SS altogether. That’s not a plan, it’s political games, and it’s old.
Another item that this budget leaves out, or actually cuts, is services to the poor. There are many- about 120, but I will use Amtrak as an example. Now who rides Amtrak? It’s not the powerful chummy Republican donors. It’s not the rich traveling from their summer home to their winter home. I’ll bet that Bush has never stepped foot on an Amtrak. It’s the poor college students, the poor workers, the poor single mothers and the lower middle-class family trying to take a meager vacation. Frankly, it’s the poor and lots of them. They travel Amtrak in the millions and for the overwhelming majority of them it’s the only means of transportation affordable to them. Cutting Amtrak is not fiscally conservative, it’s morally inexcusable. A few posts ago, I stated that if we are going to talk about Social Security, then we must talk about social security, this is what I meant.
Republicans claim that this new Bush budget will cut the deficit by about $40 billion over next year and keep doing so for the next five years. That’s not true. The budget submitted is incomplete and does not contain all items in which the Congress is obligated to spend legal tender. Thus, Congress having the power of the purse is, by law, ordered to disclose all budgetary expenditures, which includes phasing out SS, fighting foreign wars and payments to commentators for promoting failed presidential policy. Therefore, this isn’t a budget at all; maybe that’s why Bush gets away with so much.
February 16, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Cutting Amtrak is not fiscally conservative, it’s morally inexcusable. A few posts ago, I stated that if we are going to talk about Social Security, then we must talk about social security, this is what I meant."
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't go so far as calling it morally inexcusable, I would just call it pennywise, but pound stupid. It is the same thing as giving seniors social security benefits, but then upping property taxes, so that their payments increase a couple hundred dollars a month over the course of a decade. How stupid is that? Giving them money on one side, but then driving them further into poverty on the other...make up your minds, government people. I am definately not for a welfare state, however I don't understand having a policy on one hand, and a policy on the other that completely annuls the former.
Budget's that presidents give are merely tools to begin the bargaining process. White Houes Press Secretary eluded as much when asked about the cuts, "we know that we will get some, but realize we will not get them all."
ReplyDeleteI guess the Amtrak analogy affects you in your thoughts on governement responsibility. Is it the government's responsibility to subsidize sinking projects? To bail out all companies that are failing? Wheh government becomes a crutch, when people say, we can get the government to pay for it, that is when government has become too involved.
Clinton did bring about surpluses, but he did so cutting some of the projectds, like the military, that a governemnt is responsible for. Testing the thickness of Ketchup is not a neccessity in government spending. I have not been impressed with Bush and his spend, spend, spend philosophy, but why berate someone who finally starts to get it. We need cuts in spending, onsolidation of like-minded projects, and general accountability in Washington.
ValleyGirl and Craig:
ReplyDeleteAmtrak is not socialism or really have anything to do with the welfare state. Amtrak is not a free service. If it were free to all citizens, with total expenses towards the government, then it would be a socialist program. People who ride Amtrak purchase a ticket, usually about $55 for a 300 mile trip. There's nothing socialist about that, nor does it reflect my thoughts about government responsibility.
The government only subsidizes Amtrak in order to keep the ticket prices low and allow the poorest amongst us to travel relatively cheap. It's private transportation subsidized by the government.
Craig, you ask if it's the government's responsibility to subsidize sinking projects, to bail out companies that are failing. Guess what, airliners are federally subsidized also- even more so than Amtrak. And airliners are in much worse shape than Amtrak, they are sinking drastically. So the next time Bush bails out an airline, which he will really soon, I'll remember that. Does that make airliners socialist? Does that reflect government's responsibility? If you call Amtrak a crutch, then you call airliners a crutch. Can't have it both ways.
Both Amtrak and airlines are equal if you are considering them government programs. Should we cut airline subsidies? Oh no, you know why? Because the rich travel the airlines. It's the rich traveling from their summer home to their winter home. They don't use Amtrak, they use airlines, both of which are subsidized by the government. But lets cut the mode of transportation for the poor. That's morrally inexcusable.
Hummm, are you sure you want to talk about Clinton and budget responsibility? I'll just say this again:
"[H]ardly did Bush inherit an economy on the verge of bankruptcy or even deficit spending. And besides, in 1993 Clinton inherited an economy in far worse shape, with extreme budget deficits than did Bush in 2001, and Clinton managed to be fiscally responsible enough to change how the government did business as well as generate a surplus."
Thanks for reading.
I must first say, I am against all subsidy, not limited to and including airlines. Their are airlines that do exist without government help, Southwest for one. It can be done, but many airlines have decided to lean on the government crutch they aer given.
ReplyDeleteAnd if I can say anything good about Clinton, he was a fiscal conservative. What we need in the White House is a fusion of Bush's policies and Clinton fiscal responsibility. There I said it, better print it so you have it for attacks later. haha.
The sense I get from Bush's budget proposal is that he submits something insane and then the Congress tries to rehab it or corrupt it as they see fit and then Bush signs it. By the time it's finished I doubt it will look remotely like what Bush submitted originally.
ReplyDeleteWhy did you change the basis-colour of your website.....? It was MUCH more easy to read the other one! (just a comment, for sure....) ;)
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't necessarily call Clinton a fiscal conservative. He was just more fiscally responsible than people give him credit for.
ReplyDeleteToo many times people assume that if someone is "responsible" then they are conservative, and too many times people assume that when people are irresponsible they are flaming liberals. Those terms are way too often misconstrued in American politics.
If you are against subsidies all together, are you against pell grants and map grants for college students? What about foreign aid? Or how about subsidies to corporations that build military/defense products?
Subsidies are not hand-me-downs. And they are not socialism or remotely welfareish. The federal government is in place to do more than assure military spending and operations, which also requires those expenditures to be included in the fiscal budget, something Bush has not done.