quote:$2.5 Trillion Budget Plan Cuts Many Programs Domestic Spending Falls; Defense, Security Rise
By Mike Allen and Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, February 7, 2005; Page A01
President Bush plans to unveil a $2.5 trillion budget today eliminating dozens of politically sensitive domestic programs, including funding for education, environmental protection and business development, while proposing significant increases for the military and international spending, according to White House documents.
Overall, discretionary spending other than defense and homeland security would fall by nearly 1 percent, the first time in many years that funding for the major part of the budget controlled by Congress would actually go down in real terms, according to officials with access to the budget. The cuts are scattered across a wide swath of the government, affecting a cross-section of constituents, from migrant workers to train passengers to local police departments, according to officials who read portions of the documents to The Washington Post.
About 150 programs in all would be shuttered or radically cut back to help meet Bush's goal of shaving the budget deficit in half by 2009. One out of every three of the targeted programs concerns education. Medicaid funding would be reduced significantly and even major military weapons programs would be scrapped to make more resources available for the war in Iraq.
The spending blueprint for fiscal 2006 and beyond promises to touch off a wrenching debate about national priorities in the months ahead.
Some congressional officials pronounced many of the proposed cuts dead on arrival. One lawmaker involved in the negotiations said that House and Senate leaders have told the White House that no more than two dozen of the 150 proposals are likely to be accepted, although Congress might agree to reductions in some programs targeted for elimination.
"We are being tight," Vice President Cheney said yesterday. "This is the tightest budget that has been submitted since we got here." But Cheney defended the cuts as measured. "I think you'll find, once people sit down and have a chance to look at the budget, that it is a fair, reasonable, responsible, serious piece of effort," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "It's not something we've done with a meat ax, nor are we suddenly turning our back on the most needy people in our society."
Some administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the budget has not been released, acknowledged that they faced an uphill struggle on the proposed cuts, some of which were rejected in the past. One official said the White House plans an elaborate marketing strategy to sell the cuts to voters and lawmakers as "centralizing government services and saving taxpayer money."
But nearly every program targeted for elimination has a patron on Capitol Hill, and the administration has assembled a list that may prove particularly dicey. "This is a long list of sensitive programs," said a congressional leadership aide. "A lot of these proposals we've been through before and the programs have survived. This is going to be a tough sell for the president."
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in an interview that although many of the requests will be opposed, he believes that Congress will still cut "tens of millions of dollars and set the standard that the federal government can stop doing things that it shouldn't be doing, or is not doing well."
And some deficit hawks welcomed what they hoped would be a hard-nosed approach to spending at a time when the deficit is projected to reach a record $427 billion this year. "With the deficits that we're now running, I'm glad the president is coming over with a very austere budget," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said on ABC's "This Week." "I hope we in Congress will have the courage to support it."
The spending plan does not include future expenses of the continuing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor does it include upfront transition costs of restructuring Social Security as Bush has proposed. The administration will submit a separate supplemental request largely for Afghanistan and Iraq operations in the current fiscal year, which will be reflected in the budget charts, officials said, but war costs in 2006 and beyond will not be. Nor will be the cost of Bush's Social Security plan, which would begin in 2009 and result in $754 billion in additional debt over its first five years.
Those omissions provide ammunition to Democrats who dispute Bush's math. "The Administration's claim that it will cut the deficit in half by 2009 lacks credibility," said a report released last week by House Budget Committee Democrats. When the omitted items are included, along with the impact of making Bush's first-term tax cuts permanent, the report estimated that the government would rack up $6.1 trillion in deficit spending over the next decade.
Administration officials said they would outline a five-year spending plan that would cut deeply enough that it could still accommodate future Iraq and Social Security costs without sacrificing the president's deficit-cutting pledge. "We have acknowledged that there may be additional spending," said Chad Kolton, spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget. "Our numbers will show that even with some additional spending from the war in Iraq, we'll still be half" of the deficit by 2009.
Another senior official said the deficit in the Bush plan would decrease from 3.5 percent of gross national product this year to 3 percent in fiscal 2006 and 1.5 percent by 2009, enough to meet Bush's pledge. In the budget for 2006, discretionary spending -- meaning other than entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare -- would rise just 2.1 percent, lower than the expected rate of inflation. Within that category, extra money would go to defense and homeland security, leaving most other discretionary programs frozen or falling.
Some top Bush priorities would still find more funding despite the belt-tightening. The president earmarked $3.2 billion for fighting AIDS around the world and increased foreign operations and development aid by 17 percent, officials said. Bush hopes to spend $304 million to build more community health centers, particularly in rural areas. And the Defense Department would receive an extra $19 billion to reach $419.3 billion, not including special appropriations for the war.
Still, the administration plans to cut costly weapons programs such as an Air Force advanced fighter plane, a stealthy Navy destroyer and the next generation of nuclear submarines. Bush's missile defense program would likewise lose billions of dollars in funding in coming years.
On the domestic side, according to documents, the budget would consolidate 18 community development block grant programs into one Commerce Department program for a savings of $1.8 billion. It would slice law enforcement grants to states from $2.8 billion to $1.5 billion. And it would cut 48 education programs totaling $4.3 billion, including $2.2 billion for high school programs, mostly state grants for vocational education.
The budget would cut $440 million in Safe and Drug-Free School grants, $500 million in education technology state grants, $225 million for the Even Start literacy program, $280 million for Upward Bound programs for inner-city youths and a $150 million talent research program, according to the documents.
The budget includes no subsidy for Amtrak and would eliminate $20 million for the next generation of high-speed rail and $250 million for railroad rehabilitation. Several Energy Department programs would be eliminated, as would $100 million in grants for land and water conservation. The budget proposal would cut $94 million in grants for the Healthy Communities Access Program and phase out rural health grants, the documents said. Bush touted his commitment to such programs during his reelection campaign. The president would terminate the Community Food and Nutrition Program, and cut a migrant and seasonal farm worker training program. He would renew his effort to cut a $143 million program for the removal of severely distressed housing.
Administration officials said that in some cases, programs identified for eradication would be replaced in part by increased spending elsewhere. Some cuts in specific programs would be replaced by block grants to states and localities, although critics contend that often leads to less money.
Hmm...I'm concerned that the budget does not include projected spending on Iraq.
Social Security reform, I'm just not getting it. The cost is in the billions to transition it. And this is going to save the program?
posted
Bush is going to ask for 80 some billion dollars on the side for Iraq and Afghanistan. Social Security isn't in there because he claims it is a work in progress.
quote: Still, the administration plans to cut costly weapons programs such as an Air Force advanced fighter plane, a stealthy Navy destroyer and the next generation of nuclear submarines. Bush's missile defense program would likewise lose billions of dollars in funding in coming years.
I love the fact that we are sacrificing national defense and domestic programs for the sake of wasting money in other countries. After hundreds of billions of dollars spent researching those military technologies to keep us the strongest nation on earth, we have to cut back. Good luck America.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*rolls eyes* Is there any reason why he can't just cut his stupid tax cut? That seems like a logical solution to me. Instead a ton of people are going to suffer and I hope they raise some hell and don't take this laying down.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I've been saying all along that this is the first time in American history that an American president hasn't called on Americans to sacrifice while waging a war.
It's obvious that people are now being called onto sacrifice - but it won't the the rich, the plan is to make their tax cuts permanent.
Nope - here's where the real sacrifice starts:
quote:On the domestic side, according to documents, the budget would consolidate 18 community development block grant programs into one Commerce Department program for a savings of $1.8 billion. It would slice law enforcement grants to states from $2.8 billion to $1.5 billion. And it would cut 48 education programs totaling $4.3 billion, including $2.2 billion for high school programs, mostly state grants for vocational education.
The budget would cut $440 million in Safe and Drug-Free School grants, $500 million in education technology state grants, $225 million for the Even Start literacy program, $280 million for Upward Bound programs for inner-city youths and a $150 million talent research program, according to the documents.
That's just for starters...
"To whom little has been given, even more can be taken away."
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bloody hell. This is going to make things difficult for so many people. And what's worse, he doesn't care. Why should he? He's not the one who will have to suffer. Where the heck is the logic in a huge tax cut for the rich during a war? Or cutting funding to people with brain injuries? Why? Furthermore, this is not acceptable. Smaller government is one thing, but gutting programs? Pushing initatives that will hurt a lot of people and create a worse gap between the rich and poor? Hell no. This isn't right. People need to calmly raise hell against this.
posted
I'm upset with the fact that it has gotten to the point where nearly whatever the news release is, I've become numb to its consequences. I think its more that since there is basically nothing that I can be done, the desire to rail on starts to feel fruitless. Scary.
Posts: 291 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There has to be something that can be done. These people represent such a small portion of the population. These cuts will effect millions. Something HAS to be done. It can't be completely hopeless...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only recourse we have is to go to our Congressmen and Representatives, and let them know that this is not acceptable. The first thing that needs to be done is the tax-cut needs to be repealed. Across the nation, state governments have raised taxes to pay for programs no longer funded by the feds, and when Bush cuts even more programs, guess who'll be paying for it? You and me. This administration has yet to learn that you can't spend more than you have. Supply-side economics will not recoup the dollars bleeding out of the economy.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a good idea, writing to congressmen. Maybe I can get them to cut enough programs to acutally balance the budget.
I'm tired of this unquestioned assumption that a federal program is the answer to all economic ills. I'd would be happy to increase my tax burden by 20% if 3/4 of that went to the states.
posted
Dags, I'm sure there are legitmate programs that deserve to be cut. However, cutting the EPA, federal school subsidies, and military veterans benefits is not okay with me. People rely on these services, and in some cases have earned those benefits.
quote: I'm tired of this unquestioned assumption that a federal program is the answer to all economic ills. I'd would be happy to increase my tax burden by 20% if 3/4 of that went to the states.
I don't have an unfounded assumption that federal programs solve economic ills. I believe that there are many federal programs that could never have been accomplished by relying on state governments alone, and that ultimately, money needs to be spent to correct these problems.
If you live in Virginia, you've probably already noticed your taxes being raised (sales, and property especially). It's the first major tax hike in a decade, and it can be directly tied to a withdrawal of federal funds for infrastructure (and in some small way, the elimination of the car tax -thanks Gilmore . Either way we end up paying for it.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"federal school subsidies" is exactly the kind of program that doesn't need to be a federal program. There are countless others.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why shouldn't the federal government be spending money on education? You can argue that the execution of the funding isn't appropriate, but the principle behind the plan is just. It benefits the entire country to be educated, and reliance on state funding leaves disparate gaps between geographically grouped states (i.e. most of New England). Those education gaps feed directly into the economic stability of the regions. Look at any area with poor/inadequate school systems and you see a pretty good correlation to their local economy.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
States can afford to pay for education, especially if they raised taxes in response to a lowering of federal taxes. And if the states don't raise their education spending in response to the federal cuts, then it will be the result of a far, far more responsive political system - state or local legislatures.
posted
Well I'm Canadian so this isn't my buisness but I will say this: Why cut the budget for services meant to help people? And also look at the long term economic planning being skewed. By taking money out of the schools you encourage a shotty education system that graduates even more people like Bush who now care even less ofr the shools and thus their pay gets cut even more forcing schools to fire good teachers and hire crappy ones who all they ever do is listen to "Dance of the tullips" and talk about their mortage. WHERES THE JUSTICE IN THIS!? Luckily since Canada made the choice to sacrifice out armed forces for the good of the people, May umm whoever is up their bless Canada.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Left to their own devices, "States" have a tendency to do the wrong thing. And I live in Kansas. I know about stupidness in the classroom. Evolution? Brown v. Topeka Board of Education? States are stupid and discriminatory. The Feds need to be involved to make sure rights are protected.
And the other thing I don't understand is why there needs to be local control. Aside from the cost of living differences for the teachers pay, why should different schools have different funding? And why do they have different curriculum? Shouldn't all the kids be learning the same things? I don't know. I've never really thought about it much, and I don't have much invested in this opinion, but it just seems wrong to me that there are kids who miss out on a lot of opportunities just because of where they live.
Can anyone give me a good reason for local control? (I saw Belle's, but I don't really understand it. Local control has, in the past, generally meant keeping out those we don't want in and extra funding for football. What responsiveness is needed? And trust me, having locals didn't help us at all. At most, they were doing the very minimum to fulfill Federal guidelines. If it weren't for those, they would have been (and really were) totally okay with my son just being labled stupid, so they didn't have to bother with anything. He would have turned into a good janitor, which is all they were really concerned with. Just passing him along till he wasn't their problem anymore.
posted
An improper status quo is not a reason to resist change. This country is based on federalism, which means states and federal government's have different roles. Forgetting constitutional justifications for a minute, there are many reasons to prefer that as much government (including the money coercively taken and spent by government) be at the level as close as possible to the people it is responsible to.
The federal government is not representative: the power of the Senate is grossly skewed to smaller states, and Representatives represent ~640,000 people. One of the reasons this was seen as acceptable was because the federal government's power is supposed to be limited.
Unfortunately, at best this doctrine is given selective lip service when it's considered as anything other than an afterthought. I'd like to change that.
quote:Can anyone give me a good reason for local control?
We're supposed to have a government responsive to the people. It's fitting that the government program that directly affects most people the most often be as close to the people as possible.
Further, if some states wish to teach different things to their children, why shouldn't they? If they wish to allocate resources differently, why shouldn't they? If some schools want to try different theories of teachings, why shouldn't they?
The question shouldn't be "Why shouldn't the federal government do X?" but "Why shouldn't X be left up to the states?"
posted
I think the election of local officials is an extremely good reason for local control.
I know who is on my school board. I read all the meeting minutes, I can go to a meeting any time I want to. I can call and ask for the names of the people on the textbook committee and review all the textbook purchases planned for next year if I wish.
Do you think if I called an agency in Washington and said I wanted to know who I could talk to about a certain issue in my local school they would care? I mean, if they're administering millions of schools, why should it matter to them who I am or what I want?
But my local school board is answerable to me, they are only concerned with the running of the school right there in my community, they live in the community, they have to see parents at the grocery store, to get elected they have to get out there and talk to us, and respond to us if they want to keep their job.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's my point. If you want evolution taken out of the classrooms and blacks in a separate building, then local control seems to be the way to go. I just don't get it.
Parents would only complain the first generation. After that, the kids who started in the Federal program would be the parents and none of the teaching materials would be a surprise. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having grown up as an Army brat, I was able to see many different school systems first-hand. Each school system had differing benchmarks and criteria for testing student aptitude. Without some common delimiter, a high school degree from Virginia could be meaningless in Kentucky.
As far as local school boards go, I think they should have a wide berth in determining how best to utilize government funding, but within a set of constraints that helps maintain a high level of education.
Let's face it though. Our education systems are failing, regardless of the local vs. national funding debate. So how do we solve it? Do we federalize the entire operation? Turn it all over to local jurisdiction?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla there are federal laws that prevent things like segregation, and there are standards that require that certain things be taught in order that someone can receive a diploma. In that way, you can have some oversight to prevent schools from doing what you describe but still leave control in the local area.
The federal government doesn't need to be telling a local school who to hire, how to spend its textbook budget, or how much money it can spend. The local area should be funding the school and the decisions should be in the hands of the local authorities that are answerable to the people the school serves.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's my point. If you want evolution taken out of the classrooms and blacks in a separate building, then local control seems to be the way to go. I just don't get it.
The prohibition against segregation is in the Constitution. And there is absolutely no guarantee that the standards approved at a national level will be better than the standards of at least some of the states.
What don't you get about people wanting more of a say in their own government?
quote:Our education systems are failing, regardless of the local vs. national funding debate.
I'd like to know on what you base your opinion that the schools are failing. In other words, how do we measure success or failure?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Glenn Arnold has posted a good refutation to "our schools are failing." I'll see if I can find it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I have no problem with that. But why not pay for it Federally? Have local control over where to spend the money and who to hire, but have the Federal government collect the money and distribute it equally, adjusting for cost of living. And have the teachers all be Federal employees, with Federal employee benefits. They could choose to work in any State they wanted, that would hire them. Would that work?
And just because there are laws that deal with segregation now, doesn't mean there won't be some "new segregation". Not literally segregation, but heck, Kansas can't even make up it's mind as to whether or not to teach kids about evolution. The next "new segregation" coulld be that States start teaching that dissent is tantamount to treason.
quote:Bush also cited Even Start, a 16-year-old literacy program for poor families. Bush said everyone wants poor people to learn to read, but three evaluations have made it clear that Even Start is not working.
quote:You know, I have no problem with that. But why not pay for it Federally? Have local control over where to spend the money and who to hire, but have the Federal government collect the money and distribute it equally, adjusting for cost of living. And have the teachers all be Federal employees, with Federal employee benefits. They could choose to work in any State they wanted, that would hire them. Would that work?
No, because the decision how much to spend is not in local control. The power of the purse is the greatest governmental power short of actual martial law, and I want that power as close to the people as possible.
Besides, if you truly gave local control over who to hire and where to spend money, it wouldn't solve the curriculum problem you seem so worried about.
The states are not evil, and it's about time we stopped treating them that way.
posted
Bush wants to increase funding for abstinence only programs. First, how much money do you need to tell kids NOT to have sex? Second, they are also giving kids false and misleading information. Which discredits them.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
"The States always screw up education!" = "The SOUTHERN States always screw up education!"
Come on, wear your prejudice on your sleeve, where it belongs.
I don't see any problem with the states funding and controlling schools, as Dag and others have proposed. The only dramatic objections I've seen so far have been along the lines of "Then you'll have segregation and school prayer, and evolution will be outlawed!"
Hold on, though. You're taking a pretty big leap. Funding schools at the State and Local level doesn't mean that flagrant abuses of people's rights will suddenly become constitutional. I don't think that shifting the financial responsibility and personal accountability for education closer to the voters and parents means that Federal oversight will suddenly vanish completely, and we'll descend into anarchy.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bush wants to increase funding for abstinence only programs. First, how much money do you need to tell kids NOT to have sex? Second, they are also giving kids false and misleading information. Which discredits them.
This is a good argument for avoiding Federally-funded education programs. It's all fun and games until we elect someone you don't like. Then all of a sudden, the Federal programs suck, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Instead of one monolithic system, I'd like to see different school systems in different states try different strategies, and then learn from each other's successes and failures. Rather than betting the whole country's kids on one possibly-retarded scheme.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Bush also cited Even Start, a 16-year-old literacy program for poor families. Bush said everyone wants poor people to learn to read, but three evaluations have made it clear that Even Start is not working.
Why is he increasing abstinence only again?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And why does it cost billions just to transition?
Bob, because money being payed into the system by current employees funds payments to currently retired people. One of the key points of the new plan is that some of this money will go into retirement accounts investable by the current employees themselves. In the short term, then, it will be in the hands of whatever entity it is invested into, but not in the hands of the social security system. Therefore, there will be a shortfall, because the system will have to continue to pay out, with less coming in.
At least, that's my understanding of the situation.
I really have no opposition to cutting spending (in generic terms), but I resent the money we are spending in the middle east--not because I am an isolationist, but because I don't think a two-front war was really necessary at this moment. Also, if we're tightening our belts, then we ought to have another look at those bri--tax cuts.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what of those who voted for him, or at least partially for him, because of his previous stand on increasing federal education spending?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom -- I don't think so, at least not in one sense. There is definitely a decent sized body of people who voted for him because they think he means what he says -- even though Bush has been one of the most egregious examples of saying one thing and then doing another.
The education funding is merely a special case of that.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, you may be the only person on Earth for whom Bush's presidency has been nothing but a string of pleasant surprises. j/k
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Dan or I said you didn't, Dag .
However, there are certainly a large number of people on hatrack alone who have stated their preference for Bush because he's a straight talker/he does what he says/et cetera.
That he's one of the most skilled politicans at not being those things would be quite amusing if it weren't so frustrating (and its still pretty amusing).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
. Either way we end up paying for it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
