* Budget is Fiscally & Morally Irresponsible, and a Failure of Leadership

[paineinthearse]

Pelosi: 'President's Budget is Fiscally Irresponsible, Morally Irresponsible, and a Failure of Leadership'

2/7/2005 10:44:00 AM


----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Brendan Daly or Jennifer Crider, 202-226-7616, both of the Office of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on the $2.5 trillion Fiscal Year 2006 Budget submitted to Congress by President Bush this morning:

"The President's budget is a hoax on the American people. The two issues that dominated the President's State of the Union Address -- Iraq and Social Security -- are nowhere to be found in this budget. We know that the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost billions this year, but those costs are not accounted for in this budget. Independent experts estimate the President's proposal to privatize Social Security will cost trillions in coming decades, but it is not accounted for here.

"Further, the budget should be a statement of our national values, but this budget is an assault on our values. It is an American value to guarantee our national security, but the President's budget cuts funding for first-responders and forces veterans to pay more for the health care they have earned. It is an American value to promote safe communities, but the President's budget slashes community policing initiatives. It is an American value to promote opportunity, but the President's budget eliminates 48 education initiatives and slashes funding for health care. Finally, it is an American value to promote accountability, but President Bush's budget is deeply and dangerously lacking in fiscal discipline. It does nothing to address the record deficit of $427 billion.

"The President wants to take credit for the courage to cut programs, yet he does not have the courage to admit his tax cuts for millionaires were a mistake. The cost of making his tax cuts permanent will be $2 trillion in additional debt passed on to future generations. The President's fiscal recklessness is a tax on the future.

"The President's budget is fiscally irresponsible, morally irresponsible, and a failure of leadership. Democrats insist upon fiscal discipline with budgets that pay as you go, and over the coming months, we will fight for a budget that reflects the values of America's middle class: national security, prosperity, opportunity, fairness, community, and accountability."

http://www.usnewswire.com/

[G_j]

1. heavy reliance on cuts to low-income programs

Cuts to Low-Income Programs May Far Exceed the Contribution of These Programs to Deficit's Return

http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-05bud.htm

February 4, 2005

CUTS TO LOW-INCOME PROGRAMS MAY FAR EXCEED THE
CONTRIBUTION OF THESE PROGRAMS TO DEFICIT’S RETURN
By Isaac Shapiro and Robert Greenstein <1>

Summary


There is a distinct possibility that efforts to reduce the deficit this year will take a large and disproportionate bite out of programs that provide key supports and services to low-income Americans. This analysis explains that because substantial parts of the budget, including revenues, are expected to be largely or entirely “off the table” when deficit reduction plans are drawn up — and also because low-income programs tend to lack the political support of other programs with more powerful constituencies — a very large share of the budget reductions enacted this year may consist of cuts in programs for low-income families and individuals. Indeed, when Congress completes work on the budget this year, it is possible that a majority of the cuts will have been made in low-income programs.

Such an approach would represent unbalanced priorities.

A heavy reliance on cuts to low-income programs would be out of line with the very small role that such programs have played in the reemergence of deficits (just six percent by one key measure), and with the modest contribution these programs are expected to make to deficits in the years ahead. A heavy reliance on cuts in these programs also would be out of line with the modest share of the federal budget that such programs comprise.

Large cuts in programs for low-income Americans also would be ill-advised, given the rise in poverty, the widening of the gap between rich and poor, and the increase in the number of people lacking health insurance in recent years. Sizeable reductions in programs for low-income families would exacerbate these adverse trends.

Deficit reduction can be accomplished — and has been in the past — without injuring the most vulnerable Americans. The bipartisan deficit-reduction package in 1990, negotiated and signed by a Republican President, and the deficit-reduction package enacted in 1993 stand out in this regard. Both of those measures included a combination of reductions in programs and tax increases (the tax increases primarily affected high-income households), and did much to help move the nation’s fiscal position from one of large, structural deficits to the surpluses that emerged in the late 1990s. Neither measure contained sizable reductions in programs for low-income families. To the contrary, both achieved extensive deficit reduction while strengthening programs that assist the working poor, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Why Low-Income Programs May Be Sliced Deeply This Year
..more..
(graphs and charts included)

[Seldona]

2. This is quite on purpose.

Necons want to cut everything but military spending and programs designed to take away civil liberties.

Period.

Everything else is 'bad' to these people.

I sincerly hope none of *Bush's supporters ever become permantly disabled. Because they are working hard to eliminate that safety net.

My fundy, disabled, step mother voted *Bush, and now complains that she cannot get her wheelchair cushion replaced because of cuts in Medicare.

Granted, without that cusion she is subject to large open wounds.

But hey, at least those gay people cannot get married and abortion is on the way out, right Ma?

I actually said this to her, and she actually admitted to regreting voting for the scoundrel.

While I hate to watch this happen to a family member with such a fragile hold on life, I cannot help it if some small part of me believes she is getting what she asked for.

Not to mention the fact that though she is unable to work, she still got a Masters in Independent Living that she has never used.

Courtesy of liberals of course. Which I have pointed out.

I will convert her yet. Not that it will make much difference at this point.

*Bush's policies are going to literaly kill her first, as we simply do not have the kind of money it takes to meet her needs.

Sad and pathetic at the same time.

Hope those millionaires enjoy their tax cuts!

Edited to add and remove some content.

[Donailin]

5. Hey, dig this

I'm a c-span junkie, and I have been listening to Washington Journal everyday for the last 6 years. In the last few, years, but particularly in the last year, I hear the bush supporters call in and just praise the man like this: "I'm from MO and I support our pres-dent, he has real morals, you can just tell. Hes a godly man and has the best interests of our country in mind, the dems all they do is bash him left and right and call him a liar. They hate our country and everything it stands for"

THAT, up until a few weeks ago, was the typical bush supporter setniment. But within the last few days, and especially today, the Bush supporters are now sounding like this: " well, I voted for President Bush, but what he's doing with social security is just plain wrong, I don't agree with what he wants to do. I don't trust the markets with my money" AND " Yeah, I voted for Mr. Bush,and I'm a (insert any theatre here) war veteran but this new budget proposal is gonna hurt the veterans of this country, we deserve better" AND "Yes, I support Mr. Bush, but his plan to cut housing for the disabled will affect me directly. Why can't he find another way to save money?"

There you have it folks. Typical blinded by the right bush supporters are now seeing the light. The moral majority are now realizing which (im)morality affects them personally.

[Seldona]

6. Exactly.

Though I think many of them will simply not be able to get over those wedge issues, even though they are utter horsepucky.

Sad that the only thing that wakes these people up are when it hits their wallets.

But whatever works I guess.

'100k dead and counting? No WMD? No problem.'

to

'He is cutting what now?'

Talk about self absorbed...

[progressiveright]

7. not quite

Everything else is 'bad' to these people.

you forget billions of taxpayers dollars that go to corporate welfare, pay offs to oil and medical companies.

[JoMama49]

3. Just the same 'ol lies! n/t

[mhr]

4. Grover Norquist - "Starve The Beast"

eom

[paineinthearse]

8. Interesting floor exchange between Harkin and Spector

Harken lamented that * budget asks for more tax cuts for the rich while 250000 children currently enrolled in head start will be cut. When he asked a WH staffer, the answer was "it's only 25000".

(Harken is former chair of the Finance Committee).

Next Specter rose; the two had an amicable exchange, basicly saying that the intent of the Finance committee is to make the budget fair and all issues like this would be addressed.

[bluedog]

9. e-mail Pelosi

make it heard loud and clear..these budget bills be voted on SEPARTLY............no rider.no attachments..or they will come back and bite you in the ass....stand up and fight........
the people want a one on one bill...........no ifs..buts.about it.......