Alarms Sounded On Cost of GOP Bills

[papau]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=4&u=/washpost/20031124/ts_washpost/a8763_2003nov23

"Spending restraint and tax increases are unnatural acts on Capitol Hill. It takes some political leadership from White House, some external motivation, to get Congress to focus on the deficit, and there doesn't seem to be any of those forces at work."

Alarms Sounded On Cost of GOP Bills
By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post Staff Writer

As Congress rushes to conclude its 2003 session, Republican leaders are trying to garner votes for controversial legislation by loading the bills with billions of dollars in added costs that analysts said would expand the budget deficit for years to come. The year-end binge has alarmed analysts in Washington and on Wall Street, coming as it does after three years of presidential and congressional initiatives that have both substantially boosted government spending and shrunk its tax base.<snip>

...Overall, the energy bill would cost $33 billion and the Medicare bill $400 billion (second 10 years cost estimated at $2 trillion)... expand veterans' benefits by $22 billion(10 year phase out of the reduced retirement benefits by $1 for every dollar received in disability pay hides post 10 year cost) and increase spending on forest-thinning projects from $420 million a year to $760 million... extend 14 expiring tax cuts through 2004, at a cost to the Treasury of more than $7 billion.

All those actions come in the face of a federal budget deficit already projected to rise from a record $374 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 to close to or above $500 billion in the current fiscal year.
<snip>

Rudman puts the long-term costs of these commitments in dire terms: inevitable currency devaluations, massive tax increases, collapsing retirement accounts.<snip>

[papau]

1. Bush also won on media ownership and private replace civil service workers

Viacom Inc., which owns CBS and UPN, and News Corp., owner of Fox, exceed the current 35 percent limit because of mergers and acquisitions. But they would be covered by the 39% new limit, and have therefore ok'ed Bush agreeing with the 39% limit.

And the death of the civil service was ok'ed - Bush must "consider whether substantial savings would result" - but if they do not, he can still go ahead and end the civil service status of any civil service job. So Bush's plan to enrich the corporate world by adding a profit cost to current civil service cost goes ahead, as we will have private companies getting the work now performed by some federal workers, without any requirement that there be a cost savings involved (a requirement in the bills as they passed both houses - but now lost in "Conference")

[bluestateguy]

2. and 5 years from now they will try to blame us for a $500 billion deficit

It was one thing to blame the deficits of the '80's and early '90's on Democratic Congresses, but that line of argument is now inoperable. Will this crowd try to blame exploding deficits on Democrats? If they can pull that off then Democrats deserve to lose.

edit: typos (again)

[izzie]

3. Rudman has a way of being right but......

Since he is the one that pushed for Souter the GOP hate him.

[teryang]

4. It will be substantially more than a half trillion

Some democratic budget experts have already said this publicly.

[DemExpat]

5. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=238775

DemEx
DU Moderator