Bush's new budget has no money in it for Iraq

[Robbien]

From reading yesterday's senate transcripts Senator Harkin (Iowa) said:

I have had the chance to look at the budget. Of course, I had heard it was kind of bad. I read some of the preliminary reports, but it was not until I really started digging into it and looking at some of the fine print and getting out a calculator and adding it all up that I realized how stupefyingly bad this budget is. It almost defies logic.

After going through it, I can sum up his election year budget in four words: More of the same. More tax cuts for the wealthy, more massive spending increases on things such as Star Wars and, of course, that nice trip to Mars we are going to take, more giveaways to special interests, and more massive budget deficits.

. . .
Let's look at his past projections and promises. In 2001, Mr. Bush promised: ``We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits.'' That turned out to be untrue.

In 2002, Mr. Bush reassured us: ``Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term.'' That turned out, also, to be untrue.

In 2003, Mr. Bush again assured us: ``Our current deficit is not large by historical standards and is manageable.'' That also is turning out to be untrue.

This year, President Bush claims that the massive deficits he has created will be magically cut in half in 5 years' time. Is there any Senator in either party who believes that promise? I don't think so. Mr. Bush has not just created a structural budget deficit, he has created a structural credibility deficit. Few credible economists believe him anymore.

The Washington Post sized up this budget in an editorial yesterday morning. The editorial was titled ``Bogus Budgeting.'' The editorial stated that: The Bush administration 2005 budget is a masterpiece of disingenuous blame-shifting, dishonest budgeting and irresponsible governing.

. . .

There are three huge problems here. No. 1, we are continuing to add debt at a very rapid rate. No. 2, the glidepath is not downward to lower deficits but upwards to bigger deficits, and it rises more rapidly as we begin paying Social Security benefits to the baby boomers and, as the Social Security surplus shrinks, the true direction of the budget disaster under Bush's plan becomes clear. No. 3, the Bush budget does not include costs that we all know we are going to have.

For example, get this. The Bush budget does not include any additional funds for Iraq after September 30 of this year. In other words, for 2005, beginning October 1 of this year, fiscal year 2005, there are zero dollars for Iraq. We will have no troops there? We will have no support going to Iraq? After September 30 it is just going to all end? Does anyone believe that? Yet this budget has zero dollars in it for Iraq after September 30 of this year. That alone ought to tell you this budget is bogus.

This speech by Sen. Harkin was great and there is so much more to it, but this post is long enough as it is. The whole speech is worth a read. Thomas's specific links time out, but you can find the budget discussion in the Senate's Wednesday transcript
http://thomas.loc.gov/r108/r108.html

[Gulf Coast J]

1. I think the media is just starting to pick this up

The arrogance is quite breathtaking if you stop and think about it.

[Sagan]

2. Will BushKisser Russert bring this up on Sunday?

I'm making that my litmus test.

[Brian Sweat]

3. This is a very cynical, but potentually effective political trick.

If Bush wins the election, then he can ask for the extra money and it won't matter too much. If he loses, then the Democratic president will have to ask for the extra money so it will look like the extra deficit is his fault.

The Dems need to hammer home the fact that the budget doesn't include this money and the deficit will be much higher than reported.

[Killarney]

4. Powerful speech. I hope the media presses this info.