Bonnie Alba
Pres. Bush's 'no tough love' budget
Bonnie Alba
Both Reds and Blues are already whining and railing against Pres. Bush's $2.77 trillion budget boondoggle. Why? Because it cuts spending? Not a bit. Bush has again offered token cuts to many of the same programs he put on the table at the last annual budget go-around, which Congress again declined to cut.
Treasury Secretary John Snow told the Senate Finance Committee, "This budget represents the President's dedication to fiscal discipline, an efficient federal government and the continuation of a thriving U.S. economy."
What fine sounding words. "Fiscal discipline" and "efficiency" are misnomers when applied to Big Government. When was the last time the federal government actually cut anything in a Big way? Except for small "shows of faith" in preceding decades, when have they ever eliminated any non-performing programs or restrained themselves from overspending? "Fiscal responsibility" is part of their constitutional job description, but you'd never know it.
So far in recent congressional hearings, the mixed bag of critical (read: whine-whine) comments range from:
As for living within their means, noted is the fact that the administration will have to approach Congress requesting a raise on the $8.18 trillion debt ceiling. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., told Treasury Sec. John Snow, "America is borrowing 80 percent of the world's annual savings. We are handing our children and our children's children a set of obligations they will owe to foreign central banks." He also pointed out that foreigners are holding federal government debt to the tune of over $2 trillion (Try 68 percent, Senator).
For once I agree with a Blue. But raising this issue at the start of the annual budget process concerned with the $434 billion Deficit does nothing for the immediate future of U.S. financial stability.
In reality, Pres. Bush should have proposed 5 percent "tough love" decreases across the board, except for defense and energy. That would be a start. Instead he proposed less than 2 percent cuts affecting some organizations or agencies. And Congress will likely do what they usually do, leave them as they are and probably throw more taxpayer dollars at them.
One sure thing: 2006 is a reelection year for many incumbents on both sides. So they will decline to be fiscally responsible anyway. They will cater to their state districts and attempt to please their Reds and Blues by denying any "decreases" in whatever issue concerns the citizens.
Citizens, you have a responsibility to tell them the truth — that Congress must live within their means! Like the rest of us. That means "sacrifice" and acting in the realm of fiscal restraint. Cut, Cut, Cut. On an individual level, we, who have lived through fiscal discipline and tight budgets in our own lives, know the real meaning of "cutting back, no extras, sacrifice." Congressional vocabulary does not include the word "sacrifice."
The Congress would do well to remember that the states are ultimately responsible for their citizens and the provisions of health and welfare. Not the feds. Let the states decide what those provisions should be. Then maybe citizens will pay more attention to what their state legislatures are doing.
Over the next five months, I'm sure the media will keep us aware of the infighting, pulling-their-hair-out scraps over favorite programs. If history gives us any clue, we know that overspending will continue into infinity, that congressional members will aim their "reelect me" bellies towards the pork trough, that the President will sign off on the end budget, and America's financial future will become even less certain.
Pres. Bush is asking very little of Congress. One administration source reported that this proposal is just the guideline and Congress should take it even further in cutting, eliminating out-of-date programs, and spending restraint. That is their "fiscal responsibility."
My gut feeling: This once-august congressional body will decline to practice "tough love," not even gentle discipline, on the budget and exhibit their true stripes again — icky yellow.
© Bonnie Alba
By Both Reds and Blues are already whining and railing against Pres. Bush's $2.77 trillion budget boondoggle. Why? Because it cuts spending? Not a bit. Bush has again offered token cuts to many of the same programs he put on the table at the last annual budget go-around, which Congress again declined to cut.
Treasury Secretary John Snow told the Senate Finance Committee, "This budget represents the President's dedication to fiscal discipline, an efficient federal government and the continuation of a thriving U.S. economy."
What fine sounding words. "Fiscal discipline" and "efficiency" are misnomers when applied to Big Government. When was the last time the federal government actually cut anything in a Big way? Except for small "shows of faith" in preceding decades, when have they ever eliminated any non-performing programs or restrained themselves from overspending? "Fiscal responsibility" is part of their constitutional job description, but you'd never know it.
So far in recent congressional hearings, the mixed bag of critical (read: whine-whine) comments range from:
- The damage that it will do to education, healthcare and farm programs in the name of combatting budget deficits; Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., reportedly called Bush's proposed cuts in Education and Health "Scandalous" (Red-Republican who is not penny-wise);
- To understating spending required for ongoing commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan (true);
- To publicly connecting the dots between the deficit and the national debt (finally).
As for living within their means, noted is the fact that the administration will have to approach Congress requesting a raise on the $8.18 trillion debt ceiling. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., told Treasury Sec. John Snow, "America is borrowing 80 percent of the world's annual savings. We are handing our children and our children's children a set of obligations they will owe to foreign central banks." He also pointed out that foreigners are holding federal government debt to the tune of over $2 trillion (Try 68 percent, Senator).
For once I agree with a Blue. But raising this issue at the start of the annual budget process concerned with the $434 billion Deficit does nothing for the immediate future of U.S. financial stability.
In reality, Pres. Bush should have proposed 5 percent "tough love" decreases across the board, except for defense and energy. That would be a start. Instead he proposed less than 2 percent cuts affecting some organizations or agencies. And Congress will likely do what they usually do, leave them as they are and probably throw more taxpayer dollars at them.
One sure thing: 2006 is a reelection year for many incumbents on both sides. So they will decline to be fiscally responsible anyway. They will cater to their state districts and attempt to please their Reds and Blues by denying any "decreases" in whatever issue concerns the citizens.
Citizens, you have a responsibility to tell them the truth — that Congress must live within their means! Like the rest of us. That means "sacrifice" and acting in the realm of fiscal restraint. Cut, Cut, Cut. On an individual level, we, who have lived through fiscal discipline and tight budgets in our own lives, know the real meaning of "cutting back, no extras, sacrifice." Congressional vocabulary does not include the word "sacrifice."
The Congress would do well to remember that the states are ultimately responsible for their citizens and the provisions of health and welfare. Not the feds. Let the states decide what those provisions should be. Then maybe citizens will pay more attention to what their state legislatures are doing.
Over the next five months, I'm sure the media will keep us aware of the infighting, pulling-their-hair-out scraps over favorite programs. If history gives us any clue, we know that overspending will continue into infinity, that congressional members will aim their "reelect me" bellies towards the pork trough, that the President will sign off on the end budget, and America's financial future will become even less certain.
Pres. Bush is asking very little of Congress. One administration source reported that this proposal is just the guideline and Congress should take it even further in cutting, eliminating out-of-date programs, and spending restraint. That is their "fiscal responsibility."
My gut feeling: This once-august congressional body will decline to practice "tough love," not even gentle discipline, on the budget and exhibit their true stripes again — icky yellow.
© Bonnie Alba
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)