Bullypulpit
Senior Member
<center><h1><font color=red>Budget...? What budget...?</font></h1></center>
Dubbyuh's <a href=http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=327039>budget</a>, such as it is, calls for some $350 billion in <a href=http://www.cbpp.org/2-7-05bud3.htm>cuts</a> to discretionary and mandatory programs for 2006. In addition, the budget includes a number of tax changes that would reduce revenue by $1.3 trillion dollars over the next ten years. (<i><b>And he wants to spend $2 trillion to "save" Social Security?!?!</b></i>)
Since Dubbyuh rolled into DC, the ability of the government to raise revenue has dropped precipitously. At less than 17% of GDP, federal revenue is lower than it has been in the last 40 years. And, contrary to Dubbyuh's contentions, government spending is not "out of control". The most recent increase in spending has not beenon social safety net programs, but rather in higher defense and national security spending.
In the four years since Dubbyuh first graced the corridors of the White House, America has gone from a surplus of some $236 billion to a deficit of nearly $427 billion. And despite Dubbyuh's, and his handler's, claims otherwise, the dficit has only deepened. The 2006 budget doesn't include the costs, even estimated, of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also conveniently excluded are the costs of Dubbyuh's "plan" to save Social Security and fixes to the Alternative Minimum Tax. When you add these costs, as well as the interest on them, the <a href=http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/analyses/06_pres_bud_short.pdf>deficits</a> over the next ten years soars to nearly $5 <b>trillion</b>
And don't expect any changes in Dubbyuh's tax policy...More of the same crap different day. He's pushing to make the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent, costing more than $1 trillion. He's also proposing other tax changes that will cost $117 billion over the next ten years. Also buried in the budget is the elimination of the "PEP" and "PEASE" provisions of the tax code which limit the size of personal exemptions and itemized deductions the wealthiest taxpayers can take. This will some $115 billion through the end of the decade, with <a href=http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-05tax.htm>97% of the benefit</a> going to households earning more than $200,000 per year. According to Tax Policy Center estimates, extending teh provisions of 2001/2004 tax changes would yield about $150,000 in tax cuts for those making over $1 million per year while yielding a significantly smaller proportion in tax relief to middle class taxpayers. The Adminstration seems bent on continuing its policies which extends preferential treatment to income generated by capital rather than by work. These tax policies are punitive towards work while they allow the very wealthy to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
The process is skewed even further and the deficit deepened by PayGo rules which mandate expansions in government services to be paid for by cuts elswhere in the budget, however the proposed tax cuts and other changes to the tax code which will further reduce federal revenues are exempt from these rules.
We are already reaping the bitter harvest of Dubbyuh's previous domestic policy decisions. States all over the country are cutting funding to Medicaide programs, education and infrasturcture. Under this budget, these cuts will only deepen, leading to cuts in health and long-term care benefits for over 50 million people. The republican governnor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee said, "<i>People need to remember that to balance the budget off the backs of the poorest people inthe country is simply unacceptable. You don't pull feeding tubes from people. You don't pull the wheelchair out from under the child with muscular dystrophy.</i>" So much for protecting the weakest among us. The truly sad part of this is that the proposed cuts won't even begin to balance the budget.
Dubbyuh has made much of his "record" on defense and the "war" on terror. But guess what...? The Department of Homeland security only gets a 1% increase in its fiscal '06 budget, which doesn't even keep up with inflation. And as the need for troops is increasing due to casualties and attrition, the budget contains no funds to increase the size of the Army, the Army Reserve, or the Army National Guard. Can you say "draft"? I knew you could.
That the policies Dubbyuh is putting forth are contrary to American values is a gross understatement. It fails the poor and the middle classes, who must work ever harder to keep their heads above water while the wealthiest 1% bask in the benefits of those policies. And we have yet to pay the piper for these policies. But you can rest assured that the poor and the middle class will be the ones to take it in the shorts
Dubbyuh's <a href=http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=327039>budget</a>, such as it is, calls for some $350 billion in <a href=http://www.cbpp.org/2-7-05bud3.htm>cuts</a> to discretionary and mandatory programs for 2006. In addition, the budget includes a number of tax changes that would reduce revenue by $1.3 trillion dollars over the next ten years. (<i><b>And he wants to spend $2 trillion to "save" Social Security?!?!</b></i>)
Since Dubbyuh rolled into DC, the ability of the government to raise revenue has dropped precipitously. At less than 17% of GDP, federal revenue is lower than it has been in the last 40 years. And, contrary to Dubbyuh's contentions, government spending is not "out of control". The most recent increase in spending has not beenon social safety net programs, but rather in higher defense and national security spending.
In the four years since Dubbyuh first graced the corridors of the White House, America has gone from a surplus of some $236 billion to a deficit of nearly $427 billion. And despite Dubbyuh's, and his handler's, claims otherwise, the dficit has only deepened. The 2006 budget doesn't include the costs, even estimated, of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also conveniently excluded are the costs of Dubbyuh's "plan" to save Social Security and fixes to the Alternative Minimum Tax. When you add these costs, as well as the interest on them, the <a href=http://www.house.gov/budget_democrats/analyses/06_pres_bud_short.pdf>deficits</a> over the next ten years soars to nearly $5 <b>trillion</b>
And don't expect any changes in Dubbyuh's tax policy...More of the same crap different day. He's pushing to make the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent, costing more than $1 trillion. He's also proposing other tax changes that will cost $117 billion over the next ten years. Also buried in the budget is the elimination of the "PEP" and "PEASE" provisions of the tax code which limit the size of personal exemptions and itemized deductions the wealthiest taxpayers can take. This will some $115 billion through the end of the decade, with <a href=http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-05tax.htm>97% of the benefit</a> going to households earning more than $200,000 per year. According to Tax Policy Center estimates, extending teh provisions of 2001/2004 tax changes would yield about $150,000 in tax cuts for those making over $1 million per year while yielding a significantly smaller proportion in tax relief to middle class taxpayers. The Adminstration seems bent on continuing its policies which extends preferential treatment to income generated by capital rather than by work. These tax policies are punitive towards work while they allow the very wealthy to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
The process is skewed even further and the deficit deepened by PayGo rules which mandate expansions in government services to be paid for by cuts elswhere in the budget, however the proposed tax cuts and other changes to the tax code which will further reduce federal revenues are exempt from these rules.
We are already reaping the bitter harvest of Dubbyuh's previous domestic policy decisions. States all over the country are cutting funding to Medicaide programs, education and infrasturcture. Under this budget, these cuts will only deepen, leading to cuts in health and long-term care benefits for over 50 million people. The republican governnor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee said, "<i>People need to remember that to balance the budget off the backs of the poorest people inthe country is simply unacceptable. You don't pull feeding tubes from people. You don't pull the wheelchair out from under the child with muscular dystrophy.</i>" So much for protecting the weakest among us. The truly sad part of this is that the proposed cuts won't even begin to balance the budget.
Dubbyuh has made much of his "record" on defense and the "war" on terror. But guess what...? The Department of Homeland security only gets a 1% increase in its fiscal '06 budget, which doesn't even keep up with inflation. And as the need for troops is increasing due to casualties and attrition, the budget contains no funds to increase the size of the Army, the Army Reserve, or the Army National Guard. Can you say "draft"? I knew you could.
That the policies Dubbyuh is putting forth are contrary to American values is a gross understatement. It fails the poor and the middle classes, who must work ever harder to keep their heads above water while the wealthiest 1% bask in the benefits of those policies. And we have yet to pay the piper for these policies. But you can rest assured that the poor and the middle class will be the ones to take it in the shorts
