Budget Cuts Are Coming

There's been a bunch of chatter recently about John McCain's question about the War on Terror: 'Where's the sacrifice?'

Well, it's coming folks. If Bush is re-elected, there's good reason to suspect that we will see significant budget cuts in 2006 in "virtually all agencies in charge of domestic programs, including education, homeland security and others that the president backed in this campaign year."

Administration officials had dismissed the significance of the proposed cuts when they surfaced in February as part of an internal White House budget office computer printout. At the time, officials said the cuts were based on a formula and did not accurately reflect administration policy. But a May 19 White House budget memorandum obtained by The Washington Post said that agencies should assume the spending levels in that printout when they prepare their fiscal 2006 budgets this summer.

Now nothing's chiseled in stone yet (least of all that Bush will be in office then):

J.T. Young, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget, said the memo, titled "Planning Guidance for the FY 2006 Budget," is a routine "process document" to help agency officials begin establishing budget procedures for 2006. In no way should it be interpreted as a final policy decision, or even a planning document, he said.

But, there are folks on both sides of the political aisle suggesting these cuts would happen should Bush win (i.e., if Kerry doesn't win and raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans):

"Despite [administration] denials, this memorandum confirms what we suspected all along," said Thomas S. Kahn, Democratic staff director on the House Budget Committee. "Next February, the administration plans to propose spending cuts in key government services to pay for oversized tax cuts."

But with the budget deficit exceeding $400 billion this year, tough and painful cuts are unavoidable, said Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Federal agencies' discretionary spending has risen 39 percent in the past three years. "I think the public is ready for spending cuts," Riedl said. "Not only does the public understand there's a lot of waste in the federal budget, but the public is ready to make sacrifices during the war on terror."

INSTANT REPLAY: Conservative Heritage Foundation budget analyst Brian M. Riedl notes: "I think the public is ready for spending cuts.... Not only does the public understand there's a lot of waste in the federal budget, but the public is ready to make sacrifices during the war on terror."

Not all of the public, mind you, there will be no sacrificing among the wealthiest Americans...the "productive" class...just those working class leeches who are voting for Bush because of his promises to fund key domestic programs...

Ahhh, Edward, there you go again, bashing Bush, and exaggerating....What does this mean exactly?

Well, if Bush is re-elected and he lets these recommendations stand, it means:

• The administration has widely touted a $1.7 billion increase in discretionary funding for the Education Department in its 2005 budget, but the 2006 guidance would pare that back by $1.5 billion.
• The Department of Veterans Affairs is scheduled to get a $519 million spending increase in 2005, to $29.7 billion, and a $910 million cut in 2006 that would bring its budget below the 2004 level
• The Women, Infants and Children nutrition program was funded at $4.7 billion for the fiscal year beginning in October, enough to serve the 7.9 million people expected to be eligible. But in 2006, the program would be cut by $122 million.
• Head Start, the early-childhood education program for the poor, would lose $177 million, or 2.5 percent of its budget, in fiscal 2006.
• The $78 million funding increase that Bush has touted for a homeownership program in 2005 would be nearly reversed in 2006 with a $53 million cut.
• National Institutes of Health spending would be cut 2.1 percent in 2006, to $28 billion, after a $764 million increase for 2005 that brought the NIH budget to $28.6 billion.

This being an election year of course, the Bush Team is careful to say these numbers are nothing to worry about:

Education Secretary Roderick R. Paige told House members in February: "It is my understanding that long-term estimates are calculated by formula. OMB has advised us that the numbers beyond 2005 do not reflect detailed policy decisions by this administration. They are roughly held estimates, and so we will have to await the policy decisions to draw conclusions about what the funding level will be in years outside or years in front of 2005."

But...

The May 19 memo contains no such caveats.

"Continuing the strategy of last year's Budget, the 2006 Budget will constrain discretionary and mandatory spending while supporting national priorities: winning the war on terror, protecting the homeland, and strengthening the economy," the memo states.

In other words, Cuts for everyone!!! Tax Cuts for the wealthy, and Domestic Program cuts for the rest of us.

Comments

[asdf]

... the memo, titled "Planning Guidance for the FY 2006 Budget," ... In no way should it be interpreted as a final policy decision, or even a planning document, he said.

interesting.

anyway, this was known or should have been known at the time the 2005 budget was released. It's all there in the tables.

[Edward]

The news here, I think, asdf, is the newly found May 19 memo that seems much less tentative (which had been the Bush teams' defense about the apparent hypocrisy of campaigning on increases that were being set up to be reversed...i.e., these are only planning numbers, not directives).

[Ryan Brenizer]

You know, actually incinerating the non-rich would keep the rest of the folks a lot warmer in those winter months, so they could be more alert to fight terrorists. Bring on the sacrifices!

[carpeicthus]

Meh. Erase if possible. I'm not anonymous, but fear the mighty power of google.

[kenB]

fear the mighty power of google

Be afraid, mortal. Google's divination powers have told me that you are a "25-year-old New Yorker who regularly posts his thoughts on Live Journal".

Sorry. I guess now my comment needs to be deleted too.

[Don Quijote]

Well, its about time those lucky duckies started carying their own weight!!!

[carpeicthus]

Ah, if the Freepers have a hold of me, I guess I can trust you folks.

[sidereal]

Call me crazy, but I like my sacrifices voluntary. I can't think of the word for involuntary sacrifice, but it isn't nice.

[sidereal]

On reflection, I take that back. The Aztecs did it all the time. However, asking people to make sacrifices is much more tenable in the long run, I believe, than making sacrifices for people.

[Moe Lane]

"I guess I can trust you folks."

You sure? 'Cuz I can fix it...

[Anarch]

However, asking people to make sacrifices is much more tenable in the long run, I believe, than making sacrifices for people.

Or, if you're talking Aztecs, of the people.

[JKC]

If not for the human costs (and potential national security costs), I'd almost like to see Bush and Congress do it. I've never seen a political party in the US self-destruct: it might be fun to watch.

Even a party as disorganized as the Democratic Party would be able to take back Congress in 2006, and Bush has no-one in his administration to groom as a candidate in 2008.

[carpeicthus]

If it's easy to fix it, Moe, go ahead, but I've largely given up on avoiding Google after that AP story.