|
Bush: Strong
on the war on terrorism. Soft on the Constitution. Disastrous on the Economy. The author is
the Houston Chronicle’s business columnist, who joins a chorus of liberals and conservatives
protesting the absurdity and lack of fiscal reality of the latest Bush budget,
in which the Pentagon and Congressional/military/industrial complex clearly
won. It’s a
reminder why decades ago the war profiteers spread defense subcontractors in
nearly all 50 states, so every state would have a reason to support military
expenditures and why big contracts are renegotiated in election year cycles, so
Congress will feel pressured to renew the addiction to weapons business. Ike was right.
Unfortunately, we haven’t learned
that lesson and are still militarizing our economy, not diversifying it. Will we be defeated like Rome, conquered
by unending wars, or because we ran out of better ideas? - kwc The Bush budget is a Trillion little pieces
of fantasy
By Loren Steffy,
Houston Chronicle, Feb. 07, 2006 §
We
will be out of Iraq and, for that matter, Afghanistan, by the end of the next
fiscal year. No troops, no economic support of any kind. §
The
alternative minimum tax, that secret tax system ensnaring more and more
middle-class families, will vanish without costing the government a dime in
lost revenue. §
The
tax cuts that have saved some of the wealthiest among us hundreds of dollars a
year will continue indefinitely. This, too, will cost the government nothing. §
That
spiffy alternative energy technology that President Bush said in his State of
the Union speech last week will help end our oil addiction? It can be funded on
a shoestring. Those are just a few
of the twisted
fantasies
you have to embrace if you want to follow the president down the rabbit hole of
his latest budget proposal. We
have been here before. It's the parallel universe in
which difficult choices are put off in favor of mind-bending assumptions. When those assumptions don't come true,
the White House will embrace its familiar retreat: Blame Congress. The cost of our
national debt, according to the little counter that sits on my desk, now tops
$8.19 trillion. By the president's own projection, the budget deficit will set
a record of $423 billion this fiscal year. Under Bush's proposed budget, service on our national debt
would constitute 9% of the $2.77 trillion in spending. That percentage, like the deficit, will
continue to grow. Mounting debt, though,
hasn't swayed federal spending habits. The government is
entering its fifth year of paying out more than it brings in, a trend the Congressional Budget Office
predicts will continue through 2012. This is what passes for fiscal leadership
in 21st century America. The issue here isn't
partisanship. It's choices. Not the ones already made, but the ones we have put
off for far too long. The proposed
budget lacks any concern for the nation's financial future. The claim of
deficit reduction is an economic
parlor trick
of understated expenses and overstated revenue. A budget with blinders
In the short term,
though, it takes a hard line on most spending. Bush proposes some significant
cuts in education spending and housing programs, reductions in environmental
protections and a smaller reduction in overall spending for energy programs. The president also has taken a swipe at entitlement programs
by making more wealthy Medicare recipients pay higher premiums. Total spending will increase 2.3%, modest
by government standards. But overall, it's a budget with
blinders. It
ignores the reality beyond the next fiscal year. We have come to expect nothing
less, because year after year this administration has followed the same pattern. The Concord Coalition, the nonpartisan balanced-budget think
tank, notes that Bush's plan to extend the current tax cuts and raise federal
spending will add some $400 billion to the deficit by 2011. The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, you may recall, came with the
promise that their cost would be offset by surpluses generated by the economic
stimulus of the cuts. Those
surpluses have evaporated, yet the push for the tax cuts remain. That shaves about $285 billion from
federal revenue projections over five years. If Congress doesn't act, the AMT will nail almost 21 million
unsuspecting taxpayers next year. Fixing that antiquated provision of the tax
code would add $500 billion to the deficit over five years, the Concord
Coalition estimates. That leaves Congress with a looming choice: allow a de facto tax increase on middle America or
stoke the already bloated budget deficit by once again borrowing from the
future to fund tax cuts in the present.
The problem with debt, as debt counselors would tell you if they weren't
too busy dealing with the charade of the new bankruptcy law, is that it takes
away choices. No choices for
children
This administration
and this Congress offer no commitment, other than hollow words, to preserving
our choices or those of our children. They continue to max out the national
credit card with abandon. It is, quite simply, fiscal cowardice. The war on terror? Our addiction to oil? Unfair taxation to
a growing percentage of the population? Social Security? Those are someone
else's problems. Choices delayed are choices made. Time is running out. We can't afford three more years down
the rabbit hole. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/3643694.html Also See EJ Dionne Tax Cut Lunacy Ever since Bush 41's defeat in 1992, Republicans
- especially Bush 43 - have committed themselves to the proposition that they
will never, ever cross the tax-cutting Republican right. Taxes will be cut in
good times and in bad. They will not be raised, no matter how much the
government decides to spend…sane budgeting will be impossible unless the
sometimes self-righteous deficit hawks get off their exquisitely nonpartisan
Mount Olympus and forcefully challenge the Republican Party's worship of tax
cuts. In particular, they should press moderate Republicans to act publicly on
what they know privately: No matter how much conservatives talk about cutting
spending, they will never cut enough to pay for their extravagant tax
reductions. That is the lesson of Monday's budget, and of every budget this
president has put forward since Sept. 11, 2001. Bush 41 may have made campaign promises on taxes that he couldn't keep.
But when it came down to it, he held to what now seems like the antiquated view
that government should try to keep some
balance between what it spends and what it raises in taxes. That may not
have been the best idea since sliced bread or the elimination of broccoli, but
it is still a good idea. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020601257.html former Reagan Assist. Sec. Treasurer
Paul Craig Roberts Who
will save America? Americans
need to understand that many interests are using the "war on terror"
to achieve their agendas. The
Federalist Society is using the "war on
terror" to achieve its agenda of concentrating power in the executive and
packing the Supreme Court to this effect. The
neocons are using the war to achieve their
agenda of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Police
agencies are using the war to remove constraints
on their powers and to make themselves less accountable. Republicans are using the war to achieve
one-party rule - theirs. The Bush
administration is using the war to avoid
accountability and evade constraints on executive powers. Arms industries, or
what President Eisenhower called the
"military-industrial complex,"
are using the war to fatten profits. Terrorism experts are using the war to
gain visibility. Security firms are using it to gain customers. Readers can add
to this list at will. The lack of debate gives carte
blanche to these agendas. One certainty prevails. Bush is
committing America to a path of violence and coercion, and he is getting away
with it. http://www.rense.com/general69/whod.htm |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
