...your post infuriates me - I had to address it separately. Though I am glad that you posted - it gives me a chance to highlight hollow arguments from the left:
First off, here is Bush's proposal for balancing the budget by 2012. Note that "permanent tax relief" strengthened the economy and contributed to cutting the deficit in half, three years ahead of schedule. Also, the report explains that only those programs "that are not getting the job done" should be eliminated.
Sure, not all Americans will be happy with cuts in government programs...but could Americans as a whole be really upset about cutting programs which serve no purpose? According to this budget fact sheet, the Program Assessment Ratings Tool is used to determine what programs are useful, which could use more funding, which could be eliminated, etc. Here is the latest information as of February 5th...
After analyzing this data myself, it looks like we could cut the Department of Education altogether - but I digress...
There has been no evidence of a lack of consumer or investor confidence despite what you say about Americans lacking any savings. If you want to blame Bush on the outrageous costs of education and housing which prohibit many Americans from saving anything, well...you're just wrong. Education costs go through the roof when legislators want to make education tax deductible (a Clinton idea) and extend tuition breaks to illegal immigrants (a decision made at the state, rather than the federal, level - see here). Also, housing prices are starting to fall nationwide, and supply and demand, rather than any government interference, is dictating their pricing.
Also, earmark reform, which Bush addressed briefly in his SOTU, should greatly contribute to the trimming of the national deficit by eliminating wasteful spending.
Lastly, I HAVE to address the fact you threw in "global warming" as if that was all Bush's fault...
Read this and weep.
Looks like they were against it before they were for it this time, huh?
1 comment:
First of all, here is an excellent impartial review of the SOTU: http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20060201.pdf
Let’s get to your response. Balancing the budget is impossible in 2012 according to this proposal based on the fact that it doesn’t account for funding the war on terrorism after 2009, which will account for hundreds of billions of dollars.
It pains me to say this, but I would actually agree with you and the president, in principle, to trim wasteful spending. Who would be in favor of wasting money? (I certainly don’t want o see the government spend millions on unused trailer homes for Katrina victims…they shouldn’t be left to rot in fields and on runways). However, while trimming wasteful spending may be good in theory, there are actual many flaws using the PART via ExpectMore.gov. For one thing, ineffective programs can get budget increases. Just look at this example with drug testing in schools: http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/2/49/2006/3
Also, there are countless programs in Bush’s budget that are cut, based on a technicality. 1) The Low-income Home Energy Assistance Program (which helps the poor and disabled pay for their heating) will be cut by $420 million. According to the PART, this program’s rating is “Results Not Demonstrated,” which means that “program has not been able to develop acceptable performance goals or collect data to determine whether it is performing.” This doesn’t mean that the LIHEA had a poor performance, but rather that the program’s data collection is sub par. So because some data was not properly collected (a more likely explanation is that the Bush Administration wants the program to fail so that they can strip its budget), millions of Americans will freeze next winter. When I bring extra sweaters and blankets to my 75 year old aunt, I’ll make to explain that because of a lack of data, she has no heat. Is this program “not getting the job done?” Hardly.
2) The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides supplemental food packages worth a little less than $20 each month to 440,000 needy elderly people, would be cut.
3) Medicare and Medicaid will be cut by $101.5 billion over the next 5 years. These cuts will result in fewer services, higher premiums, and less reimbursement for physicians. (Let me know if you want a list of all the nationally known organizations asking Bush to reconsider this cut).
Bush’s tax cuts primarily help the rich, while the Medicaid and Medicare cuts hurt the poor. It seems paradoxical that he is giving a tax cut to the rich, and asking the poor to pay more.
More on the tax cuts:
The 2008 budget actually widens the income gap between the rich and poor. The Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center reports that 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 average American household.
Despite the large tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, government data show that the current economic expansion is weaker than the average post-World War II economic recovery with respect to an array of critical measures, including economic growth, investment, employment, wages and salaries, and net worth. Employment growth has been slower during the current recovery than during any previous expansion since the end of World War II. Moreover, median income for non-elderly households has fallen for five straight years. In fact, the economy’s overall performance has been somewhat weaker than in the recovery of the 1990s when taxes were increased. (cbpp.org).
The low savings rate:
Yes, it is a problem. First, look at the baby boomers retiring. If they are spending more than they are saving, then eventually that savings will run out. When they are not working, and have no more money, how are they supposed to eat, have a warm home, and get access to health care when the president has cut those three programs? Second, if everyone is spending more than saving, they are borrowing more, which means more money being spent on interest. Eventually, you are spending more money on interest than on other goods, so your disposable income has shrunk exponentially.
Global warming, err, “global climate change:”
First, global warming is not a hoax (although I know you already discussed this at length in December). See www.ipcc.ch. Basically, determined from ice cores, there is more carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere today than in the past 650,000 years. This has caused temperature increases, rising of the sea levels, and more extreme weather. It is very likely (probability > 90%) that the cause is man-made.
My biggest criticism of Bush is how he thinks he knows more than NASA: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/ I don’t need W and his team of lawyers telling NASA or other scientific agencies what is actually going on with respect to the rising temperature of the Earth.
Furthermore, I agree with you that part of the Kyoto Treaty would be bad given that the developing nations would not be accountable. However, you fail to mention how anti-environment Bush actually is: http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/bushinx.asp.
Post a Comment