Bush’s legacy budget

President George W. Bush’s final federal budget can be viewed as a parting gift from an administration that has inflicted more damage on the nation than just about any other in the history of the republic.

The $3.1 trillion budget proposal calls for a $400 billion deficits in each of the next two budget years, created primarily by the tax rebates proposed as a tepid $146 billion economic stimulus and a plan and a boost in funding for defense (about $38.4 billion). The budget also calls for spending freezes and cuts in domestic programs, many of which are incredibly popular, especially among traditionally Democratic constituencies.

The budget also “calls for making permanent Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which have been widely criticized as skewed to the rich and which would begin expiring next year,” the LA Times said.

Doing so would cost Washington more than a half-trillion dollars in forgone revenue over the next five years and more than $2 trillion over the next decade, but the president has argued that they play an important role in stimulating economic growth.

USA Today put it this way:

Winners in the budget include the Pentagon, which would get nearly 8% more, and border security, up nearly 20%. Losers: Medicare and Medicaid, and domestic programs not related to national security.

And, as The Washington Post notes, the

plan omits several costly features, including tens of billions of dollars of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that could drive the deficit even higher than the president’s estimates. That would effectively delay until 2009 decisions on how to cope with short- and long-term financial problems, lawmakers and others said.

The Washington Post quotes one economist, an adviser to Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama:

“A whole bunch of things they were putting off and hiding under the rug all these years are starting to pop back up,” said Austan Goolsbee, an economist at the University of Chicago and chief economic adviser to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). “It’s clear they’re trying to shove as much of this as possible on to the next guy.”

President Bush is projecting a surplus, but as the Post points out in today’s editorial, but that projection is based on creative accounting.

Yesterday’s promise of a small surplus by 2012 is once again premised on omitting likely costs (zero is budgeted for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan) and by assuming cuts to domestic spending that are unachievable politically and, in large part, unwise as a matter of policy.

Budgets are itemized lists of priorities. The Bush budget — like all of his previous budgets — demonstrates the president’s antipathy toward the people who actually live in this country. His fealty is to the corporate order and the markets that that he and his cronies view with a religious ardor.

President Bush, as The New York Times points out in today’s editorial, has crafted a budget that is “a grim guided tour through his misplaced priorities, failed fiscal policies and the disastrous legacy that he will leave for the next president.”

Much of the budget plan is likely to be excised — the various dailies are reporting that even Republicans are a bit gunshy about moving ahead with a plan that exempts high earners from the kind of sacrifices the rest of us are being asked to make.

But the budget, as the Times points out, will have a lasting legacy:

What will definitely outlast Mr. Bush for years to come are big deficits, a military so battered by the Iraq war that it will take hundreds of billions of dollars to repair it and stunted social programs that have been squeezed to pay for Mr. Bush’s misguided military adventure and his misguided tax cuts for the wealthy.

This brings me back to the USA Today description of this budget as one of winners and lowers. The winners, to put it bluntly, are the people with the cash, the people who control the corporations, who have seen their portfolios increase in value and their peronal bottom lines grow.

The loser? Just about everyone else.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Ignoring the State of the Union

Bob Rixon explains my own reasons for avoiding the president’s State of the Union.

I’ll skip tonight’s State of the Union address. I detest Bush & his speaking style. Can’t tell the difference between nuance & clumsiness in his voice. Takes only five minutes to read the transcript.

I did catch a few minutes, but I was left with a queasy feeling. I will, as Bob says, read the transcript in the morning.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Tax-cutting our way out of recession

President George W. Bush seems to know only one song when it comes to the economy — cut taxes and all will be well.

His rather vague speech today centered on rebates without saying who would get them or how big they would be. But he made it clear that tax cuts were his solution to the nation’s growing economic woes:

“This growth package must be built on broad-based tax relief that will directly affect economic growth, and not the kind of spending projects that would have little immediate impact on our economy.” He said it should include tax incentives for American businesses, including small businesses, to encourage major investments in their enterprises this year, and “direct and rapid income tax relief for the American people.”

Given his record on tax cuts — selling them (falsely) as huge savings to middle-class voters while making sure his cronies well up the income ladder benefited to the greatest degree — one shouldn’t expect too much. Plus, there is some question as to how effective these kinds of rebates tend to be.

John Sweeney, president of the AFL-CIO, is critical — and makes some strong points:

In a letter to Reid and Pelosi today, AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney said Bush’s proposals appear to be “too heavily weighted towards tax cuts over much-needed spending, do not address crucial problems facing working families, and do not target tax benefits to those families who need them most and will spend them fastest.”

Unions also are worried that Bush’s proposed tax relief for businesses “would not be sufficiently timely and, because of the linkages between federal and state tax codes, could trigger economically depressing budget cuts and tax increases by state governments,” Sweeney said.

Citing lower property and sales tax revenues in many states, the letter urged Congress to “provide at least $30 billion in aid to the states in the form of revenue-sharing grants and increases in the Medicaid match.” It also called for $40 billion to accelerate “ready-to-go construction projects” such as repairs to schools and bridges.
In addition, Sweeney said, Congress should address “the most fundamental underlying causes of our current economic weakness,” notably “the stagnation of ordinary Americans’ incomes” and a lack of “effective regulation of the mortgage and financial services industries.”

Basically, the president is hoping that handing a little cash to most of us and a lot of cash to a handful of us will make the economic uncertainty hanging over the nation go away. Exactly how much did he say he wanted for the Brooklyn Bridge?

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Unlucky 13 — for the GOP

President George W. Bush’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program is going to stand — for now — because 13 more Republicans could not be convinced to do what was in the best interest of the nation’s children.

Opponents argue that the expansion of the SCHIP program would extend it to some middle-income families, and possibly some upper-income families.

My response is so what. Health insurance in this country is a travesty and government has — or at least it should have — a responsibility to do everything it can to ensure that as many people are covered as possible. SCHIP is not a perfect program, but it is a necessary stop gap until we all wake up and realize that a single-payer, national plan is necessary.

Shame on the president for his veto and on those members of the House of Representatives and the Senate who voted to uphold it.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.