I was going to talk about
Giuliani this morning but after reading this budget analysis from the
Center for American Progress I thought it was better for everyone to read this:
BUDGET
In Deep HockPresident Bush yesterday sent Congress his 2008 budget, a $2.9 trillion behemoth. The biggest winner is the Defense Department, which would receive an 11 percent boost in funding. Wealthy Americans would also receive a handsome payoff if the President's tax cuts are made permanent, as the budget calls for. The biggest losers are ordinary Americans, who would see sharp cuts to health care, education, environmental programs, and development assistance. Additionally, this budget shows that Bush's commitment to fiscal discipline -- like his commitment to eradicating inequality -- is nothing more than empty rhetoric. "According to the president's own numbers," Center for American Progress Director of Tax and Budget Policies John Irons writes, "the proposed tax policies would add $600 billion to deficits over the next five years, and $1.9 trillion over the next ten." President Bush has "consistently understated the effect on deficits and debt of their budget, and unfortunately America is going being to be in deep hock after this administration leaves town," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) said yesterday.
DESTROYING AMERICA'S FISCAL FUTURE: Bush claims that his 2008 budget is fiscally responsible because it will balance the federal budget by 2012. But as the Washington Post notes, Bush's "balance is more illusory than real." The $77 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are unlikely to receive broad support from either party in Congress. He does not account for Iraq war costs beyond 2008, nor does he "include the cost of extending changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax beyond 2008," which "would top $90 billion in 2012 alone." It also "assumes the government will collect far more revenue than the Congressional Budget Office projects, amounting to a $150 billion difference in 2012." Judd Gregg (R-NH), the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, admitted, "I don't think it [Bush's budget] has got a whole lot of legs."
MISPLACED PRIORITIES ON DEFENSE: Bush's defense requests for 2008 total $716.5 billion, including $481.4 billion for the Pentagon's budget, an 11 percent increase from its current level. He also asked for "an additional $100 billion for Iraq and the global war on terrorism this year, on top of $70 billion already sought." For 2008, the budget includes spending of $145 billion and $50 billion in 2009, "although administration officials conceded that the 2008 and 2009 requests could go higher depending on the progress of the war effort." According to the Congressional Research Service, total spending on the Iraq war for fiscal years 2001 through 2006 was $318.5 billion. The Bush budget would bring total proposed spending in Iraq to $683 billion through 2009, eclipsing the amount spent ($662 billion) in the 10-year Vietnam War. Another $140 billion is allocated for weapons procurement, research, and development. As the New York Times notes, much of this money is wasted on "products of cold war strategic thinking [that] have outlived their rationale in a world with no superpower arms race." For example, Bush asks for $4.6 billion to purchase 20 more F-22A Raptor fighters, which was "originally designed for air-to-air combat against Soviet-style MIG fighters" and is "arguably the most unnecessary weapon system currently built by the Pentagon."
UNDERFUNDING HOMELAND SECURITY: Keeping America safe requires more than expensive weapons and war funding; it also requires a commitment to homeland security. Bush's 2008 budget neglects that commitment. National Journal notes that "funding for state homeland security grants would be less than half the current level, falling from $510 million to $250 million. Grant assistance to firefighters would be cut from $662 million to $300 million. And law enforcement terrorism prevention program grants would drop from $363 million to $262 million." State and local law enforcement assistance grants would be cut by 70 percent. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said the budget request "again highlights the chronic and troubling under funding of first-responder grant programs." She added that a reduction for the state homeland security grants program "will be a severe blow to states' abilities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to terrorist attacks and other emergencies." As Center for American Progress Senior Fellow P.J. Crowley notes, "The federal government needs to significantly increase federal homeland security grants in order to support the country's security and preparedness requirements as well as provide more first-operability."
MEDICAL EMERGENCY: The "number of Americans without health insurance has grown to an unfathomable level -- nearly 47 million." The Center for American Progress reports, "As health care costs have skyrocketed, employer-sponsored coverage has eroded, and the cost of private coverage has spiraled out of reach, many families and children who cannot otherwise afford coverage have turned to the Medicaid and SCHIP programs. Since 2000, 6.8 million people have lost health coverage, but SCHIP and Medicaid ensured that the proportion of low-income children without health insurance actually declined during this period, from 20 percent in 2000 to D14 percent in 2005." Bush's 2008 budget would reverse this positive trend. He proposes slashing the programs by at least $77 billion over the next five years, and $280 billion over the next ten. More than six million people with disabilities and five million people over the age of 85 receive assistance from Medicare. "Fifty percent of people with Medicare coverage have incomes below $20,000 a year, and nine out of 10 Medicare beneficiaries have at least one chronic health problem." While the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) would receive $5 billion more in funding over five years, in reality, its funding is being cut. The Congressional Research Service estimates that "$15 billion would be needed to cover everyone who now receives benefits." Rich Umbdenstock, president of the American Hospital Association noted, "[The] budget is devastating news for children, seniors and the disabled who depend on the Medicare and Medicaid programs. They are being unfairly singled out to carry the burden of achieving a balanced budget."
INCREASING INEQUALITY: On Jan. 31, Bush headed to Wall Street and acknowledged for the first time that income inequality exists in America: "The fact is that income inequality is real. It has been rising for more than 25 years." But apparently, he's not quite ready to do anything about it. Low- and middle-income Americans are hit the hardest by Bush's 2008 budget. A total of 141 government programs will be eliminated or sharply reduced if the budget is enacted. Bush cuts housing for low-income seniors by nearly 25 percent, a program to provide low-income people with assistance paying heating costs by 18 percent, funding for community development grants by 12.7 percent, and grants for education and employment training by 8 percent. Bush's budget also cuts funding for child care and HeadStart, an early education program for low-income children. It also provides no new funds for family planning, even though 1 million more women are in need of contraceptive services and supplies since 2001. The bottom line: 200,000 fewer low-income children would receive child care assistance. Wealthy Americans, however, will not have to suffer under Bush's budget, which proposes making his tax cuts permanent at a cost of $1.6 trillion over 10 years. According to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, "if the President's tax cuts are made permanent, households in the top 1 percent of the population (currently those with incomes over $400,000) will receive tax cuts averaging $67,000 a year by 2012. In today's dollars, that amount is larger than the entire income of the typical American household."
MAKING AMERICA LESS CLEAN: The media applauded Bush's new commitment to the environment and combating climate change in his 2007 State of the Union address. But his 2008 budget doesn't live up to his rhetoric, granting drilling leases in the Alaskan wilderness to oil companies and cutting the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by $116 million. He has also proposed a $35 million decrease in funding "for State and local programs that help keep our air clean in our cities and states," a $5 million decrease in funding for the EPA's science and technology budget for climate protection, and a $7 million decrease in funding for cleanups at Superfund sites, efforts which are meant to clean up the nation's most heavily contaminated toxic waste sites in communities across the country."
