GOP wary of adding to rising U.S. debt

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/spend14e_20050214.htm

GOP wary of adding to rising U.S. debt

WASHINGTON -- Stung by sticker shock, congressional Republicans are struggling to embrace President George W. Bush's ambitious and expensive agenda while avoiding the economic and political pitfalls of massive new debt.

The numbers speak for themselves: Ten-year cost projections are $2.2 trillion to overhaul Social Security, $724 billion for the Medicare drug benefit, $1.1 trillion to make tax cuts permanent, and untold billions to secure Iraq and Afghanistan beyond this year.

Republicans, who control both houses of Congress, are responding with a slew of suggestions, from raising taxes and delaying some of the president's proposals to cutting spending more deeply

....

"We're going to have to figure out a way to live within the numbers," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.

<</SNIP>>

[LiberalEsto]

1. Howard Dean said it all:

"Republicans have shown they can't be trusted with our tax dollars."

[Knight of Ni]

20. Dean really gets it.

I saw his acceptance speech after winning the DNC chairmanship. One of the best things he did was repeat the perfect mantra to define the modern Republican Party:

Borrow and spend!
Borrow and spend!
Borrow and spend!

[porkrind]

50. Good meme

(Welcome to DU!)

Borrow and spend! Borrow and spend! Out with the thieves or they'll do it again!
Borrow and spend! Borrow and spend! Out with the thieves or they'll do it again!
Borrow and spend! Borrow and spend! Out with the thieves or they'll do it again!

[barb162]

29. beautiful!!! in one line

[TahitiNut]

33. Republicans can't be trusted with the Federal credit card.

They're like a spiteful, greedy wife with a new lover - taking her husband's credit cards and charging them to the limits before walking out and going to Vegas with her new sugar daddy.

[Skidmore]

2. Living within the numbers is gonna be a tough one, Normie....

for every life you mess up with cuts, you've got one more disenchanted voter. Karma bites, Normie.

[Strelnikov_]

12. What Ya Gonna Eliminate, Normie?

All of the Federal Govt. outside of SS, Defense, Medicare, Medicaid?

Still won't get things balanced.

[FighttheFuture]

39. This is true... but.... only if the connection is made.

I agree with this, but the Dems/Progressives/Liberals/etc. have to keep hammering home why the average person's life is on the decline, and is increasingly declining.

That is the trick. Get through the MSM and talking heads and start making the connections. Otherwise, they will all think it's "dem liburals fault".

I think Dr. Dean, along with the new rising Dems with their newly found porta-spines, will be very good on getting this connection out there.

[sabra]

3. Raising taxes? I thought that was a liberal thing?

[denverbill]

7. Not if you raise taxes on the poor.

Don't be surprised if we start hearing about how we need to raise social security taxes and Medicare taxes soon.

[Ravenseye]

27. Don't Forget the VAT

They want a federal value added tax. Bet they make an exception so that things that cost over say 10 thousand dollars are tax free, just to help those poor people buy cars....or some bullshit logic which really means they're helping their millionare friends buy caviar to stock their new yacht.

[wildmanj]

4. live within

what a bunch of WIMPS---just do it---no one left to blame now

[Jamastiene]

5. Why all of a sudden

would they care? Now? I mean they didn't care before while they helped Bush squander the surplus left over by none other than us...

[cliss]

17. Exactly my thoughts.

Where have they been these past 4 years. Have they not seen what Bush has been up to all this time?

Asleep at the wheel.

[driver8]

26. Especially since they aren't the ones paying it back!

"Why all of a sudden" is right. They haven't had any problems squandering money up to this point.

What a mess shrub is going to leave this country in.

[SpiralHawk]

6. "D'oh" - Republican Party

"Let me tell you my "thoughts" about tax relief. When your economy is kind of ooching along, it's important to let people have more of their own money."
- George W. Bush, Boston, Oct. 4, 2002

"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."
- George W. Bush, Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002


"I think the American people--I hope the American--I don't think, let me--I hope the American people trust me."
- George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2002

[truthisfreedom]

8. hey, freepers, it's easy. stop buying into war. let's bring the kids home.

they deserve to enjoy the country they were fooled into "protecting."

[Toots]

9. Don't Worry Norm.......Cheney says "Deficits don't Matter"

Reagan Proved that. Red Ink Republicans are who they are and have always been thus.

[CountAllVotes]

10. I'm glad they are not buying into this 100%

I wrote a letter last week that was directed towards my two Democratic senators regarding *'s obscene budget. I sent the same letter to various Republican senators (which included Spector). Maybe it does make a difference I can only hope.

:kick:

[Salviati]

11. Bullshit, they'll vote for it anyway, after grumbling for the camera

[TahitiNut]

13. Too little; too late. The GOP is the Debtor Party.

[Maguzzi]

14. I guess we need to delete ss and medicare

and give the take revenue away in tax cuts. Then you can use the tax cut as a substitute for your ss and medicare.

[Spinzonner]

22. That won't work

SS currently reduces the deficit because more is taken in than distributed.

[demigoddess]

15. NOW they notice the deficit? Why didn't they mention this before?

Did they think W was going to wave a magic wand and fix it in his second term? And don't they hear how he blames it all on congress?

[davidinalameda]

16. too late

[tiedye]

18. medicare are costs actually higher

Hume wrongly criticized Wash. Post article by his own "FOX All-Star," Ceci Connolly

FOX News Washington managing editor Brit Hume falsely claimed that a Washington Post story on a new White House cost estimate for the Medicare prescription drug benefit had reported that "the new estimate contradicted an earlier 10-year forecast." In fact, the February 9 article never reported that the new estimate "contradicted" an earlier estimate, only that the new estimate indicated that the benefit would cost hundreds of billions more in later years than most people expected based on previous estimates. The co-author of the article was Washington Post staff writer and FOX News contributor Ceci Connolly, who regularly appears on the "FOX All-Star Panel" on Hume's show, Special Report with Brit Hume.

From "The Grapevine" segment of the February 10 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume:

HUME: The White House has asked The Washington Post to issue a correction of its story yesterday that said White House officials have raised the estimated 10-year cost of Medicare's prescription drug benefit to $1.2 trillion. Other newspapers, including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, reported a much smaller estimate. The Post also reported that the new estimate contradicts an earlier 10-year forecast, but that earlier forecast covered a different 10-year period. The Post declined to publish a correction and repeated essentially the same assertions in a follow-up story today.

The truth is that the Post did not report that the estimate had been "raised," let alone that it "contradicted" an earlier estimate, and the Post noted that the new estimate covered different years than earlier estimates. The Post explained:

The most significant change, he said, is that the new budget projections tally the cost of drug benefits for 10 years. Projections made in 2003 included the two transition years before the drug coverage is fully implemented in 2006.

The Post's lead did report that the new figure is "a much higher price tag than President Bush suggested when he narrowly won passage of the law in late 2003," but this is an accurate characterization. Prior to its passage, Bush cited a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate showing that the cost would be $405 billion from 2004 to 2013. A later estimate by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), released after Congress narrowly passed the bill, estimated the cost at $534 billion over the same period. Neither estimate offered reason to expect such dramatic increases just beyond the horizon.

Hume's claim that "other newspapers ... reported a smaller estimate" obscures the fact that the White House acknowledges that the cost of the drug benefit itself will be $1.2 trillion. The "smaller estimate" results from subtracting from this figure various projected cost savings and offsets included in the drug benefit legislation, which the White House said will reduce the net cost of the 2003 legislation to about $720 billion. The Post accurately reported this detail as well:

Last night, he acknowledged that the cumulative cost of the program between 2006 and 2015 will reach $1.2 trillion, but he cited several major savings and offsets that he said will reduce the federal government's bottom-line cost to $720 billion.

The main difference between the Post's February 9 article and the "other newspapers" Hume cited was the headline. For its February 9 article on the issue, The New York Times put the $720 billion figure in its headline, rather than $1.2 trillion, but like the Post, the Times noted that the difference between the two figures is the result of White House cost-saving estimates:

Estimates prepared by the chief Medicare actuary show that the spending for the prescription drug benefit will total $1.2 trillion from 2006 to 2015, before taking account of income that will offset some of that cost. Dr. McClellan tried to reconcile the numbers on Tuesday night. He said ... the $1.2 trillion showed ''gross costs'' and did not reflect the premiums that would be paid by Medicare beneficiaries, compulsory contributions by states or savings to Medicaid that would result from the new law.

The Wall Street Journal published a February 9 Associated Press article on the estimate, which also noted that projected cost savings reduced the gross estimate:

The $724 billion figure is related to the president's Monday budget request to Congress. Without anticipated savings included in the calculation, the cost of the program over the next decade could swell to $1.19 trillion, according to the documents.

— G.W.

Posted to the web on Friday February 11, 2005 at 5:51 PM EST

[VegasWolf]

19. I thought that repukes were supposed to be fiscal conservatives. I

guess that their party has been taken over by the RW Religious
Wacko's.

[callous taoboy]

21. Oh come on you pussies! It'll hasten the end-times. n/t

[indepat]

23. Jezus H.: they should have been wary from day-one as should Greenspan

Wonder if Repugs would consider rolling back tax cuts for the most affluent and corporations rather than slashing social security benefits?

[pinniped]

24. Ambitious my a$$.

I have a marvel idea, don't go along with the POS's grand scheme. But we all know the repukes and others will embrace the war criminal POS.

--Stung by sticker shock, congressional Republicans are struggling to embrace President George W. Bush's ambitious and expensive agenda while avoiding the economic and political pitfalls of massive new debt.--

[etherealtruth]

25. "They" don't want enough revenue.

If there is not enough revenue, the much despised "social well being", safety net, and environmental programs can no longer exist. Hasn't this been the goal all along?

[w4rma]

28. Also means there isn't enough revenue for their tax cuts for the wealthy.

Double edged sword.

[etherealtruth]

30. I think it means that more tax cuts for the wealthy are likely...

The moral choice would be no tax cuts for the highest earners; I have no doubt that the neocon choice will be more tax cuts (stimulate the economy, don't you know)which will further starve any surviving social programs.

[w4rma]

42. Illogical. (nt)

[etherealtruth]

45. I knew I wasn't expressing original thought...

see this from 2003, from the Tax Policy Center http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/newsevents/cite_hidden_agenda.cfm I recall Reagan tried this very same tactic in the 80's and had success. Unfortunately the country is more agreeable to radically right wing politicians and the neocons have had success. I am pleased that some of the less crazed right wingers are afraid of this fiscal policy.

[Bark Bark Bark]

31. Don't Worry, Be Happy

(quote)

"And I think you're going to find the difference reflected in our budgets. I want to take one-half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security, one-quarter of the surplus for important projects and I want to send one-quarter of the surplus back to the people who pay the bills. I want everybody who pays taxes to have their tax rates cut."

In short, Bush said that he is going to spend the entire surplus and leave nothing to pay down the national debt. Gore, on the other hand, promised that if his program is followed, the national debt will be paid off entirely by the year 2012.

(end quote)

http://www.ishipress.com/bushgore.htm

Ooooooooops! Who's got the fuzzy math now, America?

[natrat]

32. are these people horrible lieing sacks of shit,or what?

[LiberalPersona]

34. So is this what they mean

when they say that republicans are the "party of fiscal responsibility?"

They dug us all into a hole of debt which may be inescapable, and now can't decide if they want to continue digging us deeper?

[deadparrot]

35. Poor babies.

The true conservatives knew what he was, and they enabled him. I have no sympathy. When it comes to ** supporters, my "bleeding heart" has clotted.

[AuntiBush]

36. GOP Wary!?! They have a lot of nerve!

They're going to have to figure out a way to just "live" after this scandalous reign! Taking from the mouths of their own children, and constituents!

[Inland]

37. "GOP suspicious of GOP motives, competence".

After all, what else do that have to be "wary" of? They control the government. Their debt, their fuckups, their inability to discipline themeselves, their lack of a plan for the future.

[Skidmore]

38. Stung by sticker shock--my

hiney. This is part of the game plan.

Yesterday, I heard a figure of $45K per person per year to fund the change to SS that * proposes.

Maybe it's time to turn this around. Make it no longer whether we pay for a war or we take care of our nation. Perhaps the Rs should hear no money for war. Their choice.

My guess is * and the corporate overlords are pushing global conflagration to create a new slave class.

[FighttheFuture]

41. Bingo!! You hit it on the mark....

First lets continue the slide into Corporatism (aka Fascism). We are already there, just going deeper. Then break the world apart into Feudalism. With the current level of technolgy, and places to hide, they think they can now pull this off.

Bushlovania, anyone? Norquistovia? Scaifeland? Delay Island?

They must be quick on this plan so the current power holders can still hold on, else they will loose too. The next 10 years are going to be a doozy.

[snippy]

40. This is a new attitude towards deficits and debt for the GOP.

Since Eisenhower was president the accumulated annual federal deficits have totaled around $4 trillion. Over 90% of that total has been accumulated under republican presidents and less than 10% under democratic presidents. In that same time period the deficit has exceeded 3% of GDP 14 times. Every single time was under a republican president. Ike was the last fiscally conservative republican in the White House.

[Knight of Ni]

48. Yeah , usually they only get thrifty when a Dem is President....

.....THEN deficits suddenly matter.

[snippy]

51. To be fair, the old republican party did have a sense of fiscal

responsibility. The new republican party controlled by Neocons and Theocons is committed to fiscal death and destruction, which of course are the underlying themes of all republican policies, both foreign and domestic.

[Knight of Ni]

52. To be more specific...

...I was just talking about the Repubs' attitude from the Reagan years and forward.

[GOPBasher]

43. You mean some Republicans are not just waiting for the Rapture?

I figure that the reason that most Repubs no longer care about the exploding national debt is that they think the Rapture is coming soon. Who cares about debt if the world ends and no one has to pay it back?

[ignatius 2]

44. I hope you enjoyed your fucking spending binge

and your greedy ass tax cuts, you morons. My other hope is that the American people wash the sleep from their eyes and see what these nimrods have done to our country.

Let's see if the GOP is worried enough to roll back those tax cuts for their fat cat cronies and themselves.

[superconnected]

46. they're not smart enough to wake up

It's the game they played all along. Say one thing, do another.

They're about to spend several more billion of our money on their corporate backers.

[Blower]

47. They will end up repealing the tax cuts out of necessity

"Goldilocks Economy Has Lead Balloons -- Sucked by Greased Piglet"



www.libertywhistle.us

[Thor_MN]

49. WTF??? Normie pulled his head out of *'s ass long enough to say 8 words???

Has to be a record......