The headlines across the country today are about “Bush’s Budget Bungle,” a $3.1 TRILLION albatross of excess, BUT lost in all the verbal excess is the fact that the Democrats major problem with the Bush budget isn’t how much is spent, but what is CUT.
In other words, they want MORE!!!
Democratic lawmakers made it clear that they would ignore the president's proposals to cut Medicare and Medicaid spending.
Although some Republicans also had problems with the Bush budget, like Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, who chided the administration for not considering the costs of adjusting the alternative minimum tax in future years.
For those who say the administration “Should CUT defense spending,” the Bush budget DOES!
Overall defense spending would decline from $670.5 billion this year to $588.3 billion in Bush's 2009 budget.
But the Democrats, in effect, want MORE!
They want a bottomless pit of social spending and resist the NEED to halt our run away “entitlement spending, especially Medicare and Medicaid spending!
In other words, they want MORE!!!
Democratic lawmakers made it clear that they would ignore the president's proposals to cut Medicare and Medicaid spending.
Although some Republicans also had problems with the Bush budget, like Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, who chided the administration for not considering the costs of adjusting the alternative minimum tax in future years.
For those who say the administration “Should CUT defense spending,” the Bush budget DOES!
Overall defense spending would decline from $670.5 billion this year to $588.3 billion in Bush's 2009 budget.
But the Democrats, in effect, want MORE!
They want a bottomless pit of social spending and resist the NEED to halt our run away “entitlement spending, especially Medicare and Medicaid spending!
One thing's for sure, you CAN'T cure excessive spending with EVEN MORE excessive spending!
4 comments:
In my neck of the woods, they are whining about a five percent cut in vocational educational programs. As much as I disagree with the cuts(I work in the community college), it's only five percent in our neck of the woods. Also our local paper is horrid. It never asked why the DOE considered these vocational programs ineffective. There has been some controversy, like commercial influence on the Bush administration against vocational schooling, but there has also
been some issues debating the effectiveness of vocational school due to parental preference for four year schools.
Rachel, I can actually understand people arguing against the cuts that harm themselves, what I don't really get is those who rail that this budget is a "bank-breaker," while their main complaint is that "It should be even BIGGER!"
That seems to be the position of many Democrats right now.
To me, it doesn't make sense to rail against reckless and excessive spending, when promoting EVEN MORE spending yourself, and that's what the likes of Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer (among others) are doing.
I agree
Thanks, I'm glad there are folks like you around.
For a self-proclaimed Liberal, I don't know all that many areas where we'd vehemently disagree.
Perhaps the Fair Tax, perhaps some aspects of the WoT (the FISA rules, Gitmo and parts of the Patriot Act)....although I'm not sure.
Post a Comment