President Bush's notion of balancing the federal budget by 2012 is a sham
I really do not understand why fellow Republicans believe the President's words on his argument that his proposed 2009 federal budget will help bring it into balance by the year 2012. Of course, we have to understand that his proposal would not even pass Congress or even be considered since he is going out of office anyway by the end of this year.
The federal budget deficit is running at a pace that is more than double last year's imbalance through the first four months of the budget year.
Yes, you can point out that the deficit for 2007 was $162 billion, a five-year low, but the Bush administration is projecting a deficit of $410 billion for 2008, and around $400 billion for 2009. This pretty much guarantees that the next elected President will witness the U.S. national debt to surpass $10 TRILLION DOLLARS!
Of course, Bush fails to even include the supplemental spending bills on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in his budget.
Goldman Sachs economists have boosted their deficit forecast for 2008 to $425 billion and to $440 billion in 2009, reflecting the recently passed stimulus package.
How can we still agree that President Bush is a defender of fiscal discipline?
If his proposed 2009 budget was approved, it would show that U.S. governmental spending has increased by more than $1.2 trillion since President Bill Clinton left office; adjusted for inflation, that's a 35 percent increase. His budget will be the first $3 trillion plus federal budget which would raise overall spending by 6 percent over last year and 67 percent over 2001.
Republicans still say that these deficits remains small relative to the gross domestic product, but the national debt will amount to a whopping 36.7 percent of GDP in 2009.
How about including actual figures in the budget outlook? Why do these supplemental spending packages are not factored in the administration's equations? How can Bush go in front of the American people and tell them that the deficit is much lower than what it seems?
On this $3 trillion plus budget, over $2 trillion covers Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the interest on the debt. That leaves about $987.6 billion. Then more than half - $515.4 billion - would go to the Pentagon, but KNOW THAT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY WAR FUNDING!!! That is categorized as emergency funding, so Bush gets to hide it from the official deficit projections.
Bush can talk about getting rid of earmarks, but they are a small percentage of the federal budget. He hasn't even talked about cutting the red tape in the defense bureaucracy. Can we stop listening to these financial lies?
Oh yeah, if you look at Bush's 2009 budget outlook, he assumes the following:
1) The growth of Medicare and Medicaid will be trimmed by $195.7 billion over five years
2) The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is allowed to hit more taxpayers after the 2008 tax year.
3) That the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not funded beyond 2009.
How can he assume these things? It's doubtful on one. On two, it seems he wants that tax increase to hit the poor middle class. Three, it looks like there was a withdrawal plan for the troops.
Bush better drop his "fiscal discipline" legacy from his memoirs. Not true at all!
Comments