Hidden Costs of Bush Budget will soar AFTER he leaves office

[irishgrl]

Bush Budget a Time Bomb for poor sucker who comes after him

Jason: I hope you remember this article so I wont have to argue with you later about how badly the Republicans shafted us and continue to shaft us.


After Bush Leaves Office, His Budget's Costs Balloon

By Jonathan Weisman and Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writers

For President Bush, the budget sent to Congress last week outlines a painful path to meeting his promise to bring down the federal budget deficit by the time he leaves office in 2009. But for the senators and governors already jockeying to succeed him, the numbers released in recent days add up to a budgetary landmine that could blow up just as the next president moves into the Oval Office.

Congress and the White House have become adept at passing legislation with hidden long-term price tags, but those huge costs began coming into view in Bush's latest spending plan. Even if Bush succeeds in slashing the deficit in half in four years, as he has pledged, his major policy prescriptions would leave his successor with massive financial commitments that begin rising dramatically the year he relinquishes the White House, according to an analysis of new budget figures.

Bush's extensive tax cuts, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit and, if it passes, his plan to redesign Social Security all balloon in cost several years from now. His plan to partially privatize Social Security, for instance, would cost a total of $79.5 billion in the last two budgets that Bush will propose as president and an additional $675 billion in the five years that follow. New Medicare figures likewise show the cost almost twice as high as originally estimated, largely because it mushrooms long after the Bush presidency.

"It's almost like you've got a budget, and you've got a shadow budget coming in behind that's a whole lot more expensive," said Philip G. Joyce, professor of public policy at George Washington University.

By the time the next president comes along, some analysts said, not only will there be little if any flexibility for any new initiatives, but the entire four-year term could be spent figuring out how to accommodate the long-range cost of Bush's policies.

"That president would have to face a very fundamental decision as to whether he would want to do what was right and be a one-term president or continue to play the same game and push it onto his successor," said Leon E. Panetta, who served as budget director and later White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. "That's really the choice that's going to face the next president."

The knowledge of what's ahead is hardly lost on some of those eyeing Bush's job. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has been among those raising concerns about the long-term costs of current financial policies.

"Hopefully some very difficult decisions will be addressed between now and the time we have a new White House resident so that occupant isn't faced with some very expensive chickens coming home to roost," said John Weaver, a McCain adviser. "There are some things that we can do, but unfortunately in the political world kicking down the road is often seen as leadership."

Bush advisers argue that he is tackling problems long ducked by other presidents and that his solutions will pay off in the long run. Joshua B. Bolten, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, predicted last week that making the Bush tax cuts permanent could have positive economic consequences that would mitigate their costs. And he expressed hope that the Medicare prescription drug law may still result in health care savings not captured in the current cost estimates.

As for Social Security, Bush aides said that the president's plan would wipe out a long-term structural deficit facing the nation in coming decades and that the transition costs in the next decade or so will ultimately be overshadowed by the benefits. "People in the future are going to benefit from that decision," said budget office spokesman Chad Kolton.

If Congress were to pass Bush's Social Security plan and permanently extend his tax cuts, the budget deficit would bottom out at $251 billion in 2008, then climb steadily to $335 billion by 2015, according to an analysis by The Washington Post and the House Budget Committee's Democratic staff. Those figures assume, however, that Bush will secure all of his proposed spending cuts, that he will need no more emergency war spending and that there will be no changes to the alternative minimum tax, which Bush and other politicians want to rewrite to keep it from affecting more middle-class families in coming years. The AMT originally was designed to make sure wealthy people couldn't avoid paying some taxes.

With a fix to the AMT, deficits in a decade would likely reach $650 billion to $700 billion, said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). "The days of being everything to everybody are quickly coming to a close," he said, adding that a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts would make it politically impossible to borrow the full cost of a Social Security fix. "We have to look at the deficit in a holistic way."

The White House's own 10-year costs of the Medicare drug benefit, the president's tax cuts and the plan for personal Social Security accounts are beginning to jar Republicans into rethinking the budget's trajectory, Graham said.

June O'Neill, a Republican former director of the Congressional Budget Office, agreed that the current trajectory is no longer sustainable. "I don't think that people should waste too much time on probing the details of current policy, which just can't last," she said.

"I think some adjustments need to be made," said Don Nickles, the recently retired Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Nickles said the drug law will need to be reopened to address problems of skyrocketing costs. He also said that Congress will have to be selective in extending the tax cuts, dropping some of the cuts and perhaps modifying the estate tax repeal to keep some of the revenue.

The looming problems were easily foreseeable, said Joyce, the public policy professor. The White House and Congress vowed last year to keep the 10-year cost of a prescription drug bill to $400 billion. But to do it, the 2004 law did not come fully into effect until 2006. Hence, legislation once priced below $400 billion over 10 years now will cost at least $724 billion over a decade, simply because the law would then be fully in effect.

Tax cuts approved in 2001 and 2003 were held to $1.7 trillion through an array of slow phase-ins, phase-outs and a Dec. 31, 2010, end date when all of the tax cuts would vanish. Now, Bush wants them made permanent, but according to White House numbers, a five-year extension beyond 2010 would cost nearly $1.1 trillion.

Likewise, Bush is proposing a Social Security restructuring that would cost $754 billion through 2015, including added interest costs for the government. But like the tax cuts and drug benefit, the proposal would begin slowly, with initial borrowing in 2009. The plan would be fully effective in 2011. Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, told Treasury Secretary John W. Snow on Wednesday that the first full 10 years of the program would cost $1.4 trillion, rising to $3.5 trillion in the second decade.

One tax proposal alone underscores the problem. A Bush plan to establish broad new tax-free savings accounts would actually raise $17 billion in the first five years, as savers cash out other tax-free accounts, pay taxes on their withdrawals and roll the money into the new accounts. But in the second five years, the proposal would cost $15 billion, according to Treasury figures. And the cost would rise sharply from there, as the accounts began shielding virtually all American savers from capital-gains, dividend and interest taxation.

"That's a time bomb," said James Horney, a budget analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Congress has long gamed the budget system to make its legislation look less expensive in the short run, Joyce said. But the scale of the drug benefit, the tax cuts, the new tax proposals and the Social Security plan are unprecedented.

Their coming convergence would be a "budgetary perfect storm," Joyce said. "You can't hide from it forever."

I would certainly NEVER think of being President after this clown~the next poor sucker is going to be blamed and the real culprit will be down in Texas patting himself on the back. Americans who voted for him need to have mandatory enemas and shock treatments, wear straightjackets and only be allowed to say

here's more proof of his total disregard of the plight of Americans:
Previously Untargeted Programs at Risk

an excerpt from the above:

President Bush's budget plan calls for elimination or drastic reduction 68 federal programs that he has never targeted before, including vocational-education grants, emergency medical services for children and assistance to local law enforcement agencies, according to a list the White House released yesterday.

Bush is PURE EVIL. We need another Hinckley. We needed him 4 freakin years ago.

[SuzeQuze]

I'm afraid to read this because everything I read about him is worse and worse and I hate him. God forgive me but I hate that man. I do know that he left the cost of the Iraq war and his stupid Social Security changes out of the budget. If I left a whole project out of my budget I would get fired, how the hell does he do this crap? He does have a "mandate", not with the people but with congress, etc. He also cut federal money for police form 600 mil to 60 mil. That is a crime. And he has cut heating aid for the poor and elderly, medical benefits for vets and the poor. I was weeping listening to Randi Rhodes talk about this yesterday. It is just evil and I feel for all of the people affected.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

I'm afraid to read this because everything I read about him is worse and worse and I hate him. God forgive me but I hate that man. I do know that he left the cost of the Iraq war and his stupid Social Security changes out of the budget. If I left a whole project out of my budget I would get fired, how the hell does he do this crap? He does have a "mandate", not with the people but with congress, etc. He also cut federal money for police form 600 mil to 60 mil. That is a crime. And he has cut heating aid for the poor and elderly, medical benefits for vets and the poor. I was weeping listening to Randi Rhodes talk about this yesterday. It is just evil and I feel for all of the people affected.

All in the GRAND TRADITION OF Ronnie (Im a likeable guy if you're rich) Reagan!

again, Im going to say DAMN YOU HINCKLEY FOR MISSING

[Sugar]

I wrote an editorial about the proposed ELIMINATION of funds for high school technical school programs that ran our Sunday paper. We have two tech schools in our immediate circulation area and one would loose $235,000 in annual funding and the other one would lose $500,000. But the programs are mandated, so that means the money comes from somewhere else ( ) or the programs operate on a shoestring.

But what really kills me is the REASON given to cut this funding! They cited a lack of popularity of these programs and the fact that the schools aren't doing enough to prepare these kids for college.

What?!?! HELLLLOOOOOO...tech schools (for the most part) aren't about preparing kids for college. And as far as popularity, the paper did an article about registration day at the tech school. The competition to get in is fierce. On the morning of registration by 6:00 am there was a line of a couple hundred students and parents snaking through the parking lot all vying for a spot.

So let's give our non-college bound kids EVEN LESS!

Oh that's right...Bush is about the little guy...

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by Sugar

I wrote an editorial about the proposed ELIMINATION of funds for high school technical school programs that ran our Sunday paper. We have two tech schools in our immediate circulation area and one would loose $235,000 in annual funding and the other one would lose $500,000. But the programs are mandated, so that means the money comes from somewhere else ( ) or the programs operate on a shoestring.

But what really kills me is the REASON given to cut this funding! They cited a lack of popularity of these programs and the fact that the schools aren't doing enough to prepare these kids for college.

What?!?! HELLLLOOOOOO...tech schools (for the most part) aren't about preparing kids for college. And as far as popularity, the paper did an article about registration day at the tech school. The competition to get in is fierce. On the morning of registration by 6:00 am there was a line of a couple hundred students and parents snaking through the parking lot all vying for a spot.

So let's give our non-college bound kids EVEN LESS!

Oh that's right...Bush is about the little guy...

Once again demonstrating that whole parts of the population are irrelevant. A lot of my friends went to tech school, even my brother, and some of those went on to college. Hmm, if a school is struggling, I know, let's take money away! Focusing on making sure the tech programs are relevant would make more sense. For example, my brother went for machine shop, an industry which was rapidly shrinking while he was in school. Why did they still have that program? But there are great programs like culinary and cosmetology, just to name two, that will always be popular and important trades. But the people in the trades do not matter because they aren't going to college. WTF??? So they're not going to fudge their way through Yale, that makes them irrelevant?

[SoundBoyBrad]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

All in the GRAND TRADITION OF Ronnie (Im a likeable guy if you're rich) Reagan!

again, Im going to say DAMN YOU HINCKLEY FOR MISSING

I rarely post here, so I'm not going to get political or start some ridiculous diatribe about who is right and who is wrong for their respective political views. However, I was so amazed that anyone could write such a comment, and IMO, the above statement is just wrong and uncalled for, regardless of your political affiliation.

Brad

[heyjupiter678]

Originally Posted by Sugar

So let's give our non-college bound kids EVEN LESS!

Oh that's right...Bush is about the little guy...

Here's a complete list of the 154 programs Bush wants to eliminate or cut:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/n...cuts-list.html

[Sugar]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Once again demonstrating that whole parts of the population are irrelevant. A lot of my friends went to tech school, even my brother, and some of those went on to college. Hmm, if a school is struggling, I know, let's take money away! Focusing on making sure the tech programs are relevant would make more sense. For example, my brother went for machine shop, an industry which was rapidly shrinking while he was in school. Why did they still have that program? But there are great programs like culinary and cosmetology, just to name two, that will always be popular and important trades. But the people in the trades do not matter because they aren't going to college. WTF??? So they're not going to fudge their way through Yale, that makes them irrelevant?

You know, I'm not convinced they're failing! A lot of the local businesses here have partnerships set up with the tech school and they're scared to death about the funding cuts. What is the criteria for judging whether or not a tech school is failing?

I don't know about your tech schools but I know our tech schools often take a large percentage of special ed kids and put them through the building maintenence program. so now they have job skills and can get a job after school, but I'm guessing they aren't going to perform very well on some "are the kids ready for college" aptitude test.

Yes, cosmotology, culinary skills, auto mechanics and auto body, building maintenence, and I think even computer type skills, maybe fixing them or something, are the big programs in our schools.

One of the other big fears brought up by an expert quoted in the article in the paper also said that tech school is often an outlet for kids who can't cut it in an academic environment, and that if tech school aren't an option, the drop out rate will probably go up. So yeah, either you're college bound or you don't count...such a wretched attitude...

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Bush Budget a Time Bomb for poor sucker who comes after him

Jason: I hope you remember this article so I wont have to argue with you later about how badly the Republicans shafted us and continue to shaft us.

First and foremost, I think you need a reality check in that the R's do not do this alone - many of the D's are usually right there voting with them. For recent examples, see the Medicare perscription drug boon to the drug companies, the "no child left behind" farce, the past Bush budgets, etc. - those all passed with bipartisan support. For previous examples, see Clinton and, perhaps more so, his second term - pretty much all of it. Also, the D's voted for much of RR's reform stuff. Thus, I think you would be hard pressed to quote me as saying the R's act alone - but that is about all you can quote me on - well that and at least the R have the sand to do it unlike the D's who do not promulgate it, but still vote for it and then say they are the fairer party of the two because the the introduction of the bills by the R's is a severer offense than voting for it - if they have the gall to claim that at all

Moreover and to address the implication, I have not voted R for years, I consider myself an Independant who votes for the lesser of two evils, which usually is the D candidate. So, please remember this statement the next time you put words in my mouth.

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Bush is PURE EVIL. We need another Hinckley. We needed him 4 freakin years ago.

I thought you so vehemently opposed guns? Thus, how hypocritical of you to advocate their use when it suits you and your bloodlust

[dissention]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Bush is PURE EVIL. We need another Hinckley. We needed him 4 freakin years ago.

Whoa nelly. Even I don't wish that. That's the kind of stuff that makes us liberals look like cold, elitist bastards.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by dissention

Whoa nelly. Even I don't wish that. That's the kind of stuff that makes us liberals look like cold, elitist bastards.

I'm here with Ann...she is saying "Look, Brandon...I told ya!"

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by Lux

Oh come on. What's wrong with a bit of slaughter to keep one amused. I know when I get depressed there's nothing like a random killing to boost my spirits.

I feel the same way!

So why not bomb the hell out of Iran! One less country to f*ck with!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by SoundBoyBrad

I rarely post here, so I'm not going to get political or start some ridiculous diatribe about who is right and who is wrong for their respective political views. However, I was so amazed that anyone could write such a comment, and IMO, the above statement is just wrong and uncalled for, regardless of your political affiliation.

Brad

"You make lovin' fun, it's all I wanna do....

I've a feelin it's time to try...!"

I just feel happy today for some reason!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Originally Posted by Lux

I say, it sounds like a plan. Also sounds like a certain government policy but I couldn't be bothered getting into that so for now, we'll agree and go on a rampage. Actually wait, I'm thirsty for some Belgian blood, let's just wipe them out instead.

Any place that is a threat to USA or freedom in general!

Except, I'm not being sarcastic! I'm dead serious!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

I feel the same way!

So why not bomb the hell out of Iran! One less country to f*ck with!

at least they are a threat to the U.S. if they get nukes, which they are seeking - as opposed to SH who was indeed and after all no threat despite the hype.

Note: I am not advocating bombing Iran, I am just pointing out that the invasion of Iraq was based on lies.