|
Edited on Tue Feb-08-05 02:51 PM by detroitguy
A lot of people get all puffed up about how Clinton’s surpluses were “fake” because his budgets (like those of all recent presidents) included money “stolen” from Social Security. It is argued that the SS money should have been counted as borrowed funds and subtracted from the surplus.
OK, fair enough… but what if that standard were applied to Bush’s budget?
Bush’s budget projects a $390 billion deficit. But he’ll also spend $280 billion in Social Security money (my math). So, holding him to the same standard, that brings Bush’s deficit to a whopping $669 billion right off. And that does not include the expected “supplemental requests” for Iraq and Afghanistan, which easily could top $50 billion and could add $100 billion to the deficit.
What does that mean? It means that, using the same standards that some use to attack the Clinton budgets, we’d still be in the red if we eliminated Medicare and Children’s Health Insurance program ($199 billion) and ALL non-defense discretionary spending ($497 billion).
Eliminating all non-defense discretionary spending would mean zero funding for such things as the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Interior, Labor, State, and Veterans Affairs and the elimination of the EPA, National Science Foundation Small Business Administration and MUCH more.
|