February 25, 2005

The Bush Budget - 99 Programs Terminated, 55 Deeply Cut

This month most of the policy discussions we hear relating to national politics have been focused on the president's push for changes in Social Security. But of course something else important happened this month that relates to many more national policies - the president released his newest budget. Except for the funding for Iraq and the DOD and one or two social programs (like the exceptionally deep cut to housing assistance for the disabled) most of the changes that the president have proposed have gotten little attention. So, I thought it might be useful, just to get a sense of what else the president thinks needs to be done away with or seriously "reformed", to link to this list of the programs he's trying to eliminate or deeply cut spending on. If anything on this list strikes you as a particularly good or bad chocie, comment away.

Posted by armand at February 25, 2005 12:07 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics


Comments

You think the President is a Jay-Z fan? (99 problems...)

Posted by: binky at February 25, 2005 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

That doesn't seem quite Bush's style to me, but maybe there's a fan or two somewhere in the OMB.

Posted by: Armand at February 25, 2005 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, probably right. I could see Cheney though, rapping along "...and a bitch ain't one!"

Posted by: binky at February 25, 2005 01:29 PM | PERMALINK

I'll toss a few comments on topic:

Under Commerce, the termination of the Emergency Steel Guarantee Loan Program seems sort of ironic, as it was Bush who pushed steel tariffs as a way of saving US steel in his first term. I guess now that he's re-elected, steel can die quietly.

Under Education, I note that he is terminating Foreign Language Assistance (a program for elementary students). Sure, we have that huge surplus of Islamic translators these days. This makes sense.

Again in Education, I note that Bush has eliminated both the Literacy Programs for Prisoners and the State Grants for Incarcerated Youth programs. Since paying for jailed prisoners is a state cost, I guess it doesn't matter if they leave prison and go right back in again.

Under Justice, he has canned the National Drug Intelligence Center. Well, Afghanistan needs somewhere to sell the bumper crop of opium this year, and this could be seen as a form of foreign aid. We save money, Afghanistan sells us drugs. Perfect!

The Hubble finally dies.

The State Department will have "major reductions" in the Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union program. Don't a bunch of those end in "-istan", exist close to Pakistan and Iran and Afghanistan, have some seriously problematic dictators, and generally seem vulnerable to islamic terrorism? Maybe I'm just projecting.

I could go on and on. The sheer volume of Department of Education programs that are slated to be eliminated is depressing enough. If they don't work, why have we been funding them? If they do work, why can't we keep funding them (and eliminate, say, the F22 Fighter, which we don't need, 'cause no one can shoot down the planes we are flying today). Is there any rational behind any of this?

Posted by: baltar at February 25, 2005 03:43 PM | PERMALINK

Well, you knew steel was going down when we lost the WTO judgement, as if we didn't know if was electioneering pure and simple in the first place.

The Hubble pisses me off. I know you (Baltar) are not a NASA fan, and in many cases I think they prioritize things that make no sense. However the Hubble departs from that pattern.

Good old Vladimir is going to take of the -istans, isn't he?

And while we're killing space programs, why don't we pick some that don't work, like missile defense.

[ducks]

Posted by: binky at February 25, 2005 04:48 PM | PERMALINK

I am not sure where to begin with this, but I think it's pretty damn appalling that this guy who just loves to paint himself as the education president, and wouldn't shut up about that in his reelection run, is slashing so many education programs - particularly those aimed at the disadvantaged (cuts to student loan opportunities, help for the disabled, vocational programs) who have very few people in DC to protect them, and pretty poor prospects if their educational opportunities don't improve.

The moves regarding the media and communications are interesting too (if entirely expected).

And you know that mayors and governors everywhere most absolutely despise the White House. On top of previous burdens like No Child Left Behind, now loads of the money they got from DC is drying up, including money that's gone to support popular programs like COPS.

Posted by: Armand at February 26, 2005 04:29 PM | PERMALINK

Question: What would you all be happy with Bush doing? What programs would you cut/eliminate? Bush was hounded for spending too much, so he slashes his entire budget, now he slashes the wrong things. Come on guys, this is just partisanship at its best. If liberals were really concerned about Bush spending too much then they would be happy with this budget, point blank. Then again, liberals arent much on military spending so I'm sure you all could find something to poke at. Social spending is what a liberal does best, so to act like the budget deficit really bothers them is nothing more than seizing a political opportunity. Now that he is actually cutting those programs, liberals still have something to complain about. Am I right?

Posted by: big country at March 1, 2005 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

No, you're not right. I don't know much about a lot of these programs. It might be that several of them should be cut. But I do know so something about some of them - and the thing is that several of these work pretty well, and provide a good deal in terms of long-term benefits to people and society for relatively little money. And beyond that, a lot of these help protect the quality of life of certain people who really, to be honest, have little chance of success in the world given out current society (the disabled, poor kids in rural areas, etc.).

But beyond that, if the question is the deficit - which was the issue that first got me interested in politics (I first got involved as something of an Eisenhower Republican or Tsongas Democrat) - this is a completely pointless way to fix that. Even put all together, these are a tiny proportion of the federal budget. If you want to go after that, you either have to cut the things that really cost something (and yeah, a lot of those like the F-22 fighter are in the DOD, though my problem with DOD spending tends to be less on how much we spend than what we spend it on), change tax policies (and Bush has no interest in raising taxes - he's much rather send millions back to his contributors than save vo-tech or college loan programs for kids in Appalachia), or, and mid-term or long-term this is going to be the real problem - "fix" Medicare and/or change the health care system. More and more that's where the federal budget goes. And more and more of it is going to keep going there as long as prices in that sector of the economy keep increasing the way that they have. That's going to be a giant problem (if it's not already).

So no, I don't mind him cutting some social programs, but I think the utility and morality of taking away ones that work from those who need them most is highly questionable - particular when cutting domestic discretionary spending gets you next to nothing if your goal is balancing the budget. Though of course it's been clear from day 1 that Bush has no interest in getting remotely close to balancing the budget - and whomever gets elected in 2008 is going to have some really horrible and painful chocies to make during their term because of that.

Posted by: Armand at March 1, 2005 09:33 AM | PERMALINK

Nope. I think if you look at the history of the US, you will find that not only liberals spend on social programs. The 20th century was a period of broad social consensus across parties about much of government spending. Take a look at appropriations and see how the money trickles (gushes?) down to democratic versus republican led states for say, highway spending. Not too different.

And I think you are incorrect in this statement: "Bush was hounded for spending too much, so he slashes his entire budget, now he slashes the wrong things." I think he was hounded for spending too much on the "wrong" things (your word), not too much in general, and also not spending enough of it on the "right" things. This is different than what you propose. Say you need to cut $400 out of a monthly budget of a thousand that has been going $500 to rent, $200 for food, $100 for gas and $200 for entertainment. Your argument (just cut a certain dollar amount) suggests that cutting your rent out entirely would be equivalent to cutting entertainment, plus part of the food budget and walking instead of driving. Those two cuts aren't the same. And this is the argument about cutting programs.

As I said above, I would cut missile defense. It's been failing for decades.

Posted by: binky at March 1, 2005 09:39 AM | PERMALINK

Big Country

What is this with liberals not liking defense spending? Carter raised his defense budget massively once his attempts to come to terms with the USSR early in his presidency were rebuffed by the invasion of Afghanistan. Clinton oversaw a broad consensus (by, quite literally, everyone left and right) that we could afford to spend less on defense now that the Soviet Union had collapsed. Kennedy and Johnson pushed us into Vietnam and higher and higher defense budgets. Where are you getting this fantasy that liberals hate defense?

Welcome back, by the way, we missed you.

Posted by: baltar at March 1, 2005 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Well, to rush to Big Country's defense, Barbara Boxer doesn't like defense spending - unless it's happening in California. There is definitely a "let's spend our dollars on butter, not guns" side to the Democratic party. But as to who actually has the power to set the party's policies on matters related to defense and foreign policy - Baltar is right. There are plenty of Democrats (if that's who Big Country means by liberals) who love defense spending. Of course it's been Democrats who've recently led the charge to increase the size of the Army for example.

Posted by: Armand at March 1, 2005 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

I wouldnt exactly label Kennedy as "liberal." He cut taxes, and believed in a big defense, as you stated. I'm talking about mainly those on the far left who, like Armand said, want to spend on anything but defense. Clinton isnt completely innocent. He made some deep cuts into defense spending and regardless of who you blame it on, it happened. Point being is that whomever is President gets the credit or blame for what gets spent on what. We can argue who actually passes the bills, but that is for another discussion. And yes, Armand, there are plenty of Democrats who love defense spending. I separate them from the far left, hence my use of the term liberal so much. And to say that Bush would rather send millions back to his contributors is spin. I know most Democrats dont like tax cuts, but they dont complain when "the rich" are paying all the taxes. Know what I mean? Personally, when I make it to that income bracket, I can say that all along I have felt this way so I wont be percieved as being hypocritical, :). But again, tax cuts are a total different subject.

Posted by: big country at March 1, 2005 02:14 PM | PERMALINK

Bush has sent billions back to his contributors. You might look at it as spin, but it's an accurate statement.

And of course the rich pay most taxes. What - you're going to fund the F-22 fighter off the money that some grandma on a fixed income pays in taxes? It can't be done. If you want a big state, and Bush does, you've got to tax somebody.

Posted by: Armand at March 1, 2005 03:44 PM | PERMALINK

Fine, if you want to say the Democratic party contains some people who want to reduce defense spending (the "far left liberals"), fine, that's true. It's also true that the Republican party contains some people who still think the earth is flat and that evolution is invented by Satan. The fact that these people exist isn't any sort of argument that they have any kind of political power. In both parties, the far extremes are marginalized (less so, by the way, in the Republican party than the Democratic one: far right Republicans have a great deal more influence over that party than the far left Democrats over that party).

Clinton didn't do anything that Congress wouldn't let him do. There was widespread agreement that defense spending needed to be reduced in the 1990s. Who were we defending against?

Posted by: baltar at March 2, 2005 09:57 AM | PERMALINK

Apparently Al Qaeda.

Posted by: big country at March 2, 2005 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, but no one - and I mean no one - knew that at the time. I'm actually reading a book about this right now (Ghost Wars, by Steve Coll, Amazon link here): what is very clear is that Clinton (actually, mostly his advisors - it didn't make it up to him until 1997 or 1998) knew Bin Laden was a threat, but didn't appreciate how serious a threat he was. In other words, there wasn't a credible threat that we were building towards. In addition, of course, the kind of threat that Bin Laden represents is one that the present military is not really optimized towards beating. To beat Bin Laden you need Marines and Infantry (with armor and good individual weapons), not F-22s or stealthy submarines. The weapons being built (and bought) back in the 1990s were all wrong for the wars we find ourselves in during this century. That's not a trivial problem: do you know how hard it is for the Pentagon to stop spending money on big expensive toys? We just plain didn't know and didn't recognize the signs in the 1990s (this is true for Republican and Democrats alike).

Posted by: baltar at March 2, 2005 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

I agree. But I think that we should never let our Defense down because we really dont know what is around the next corner. So to start cutting the defense budget is foolish in my opinion, regardless of who cuts it. We need to stay on the cutting edge as far as Defense goes and the only way to do that is to fully fund all Defense research.

Posted by: big country at March 2, 2005 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Budgets are not limitless. Unless you want to make tax increases limitless...?

"We need to stay on the cutting edge as far as Defense goes and the only way to do that is to fully fund all Defense research"

This is problematic, not only because of the difference between public and private sector research, but because it's really easy to hide massive pork-barrel expenditures inside such a plan. And as Baltar said above, both Democrats and Republicans will be eager to step up to that trough.

Likewise, I think the whole point about downsizing that was made above was in reference to cutting aspects that were no longer cutting edge at all, and that were rapidly becoming obsolete. You know, there's that old saying (Baltar can correct me on the details and source) about how the army is always preparing to fight the last war we were engaged in. Rather than dumping money into old ideas that are suited for the Cold War - or the potential of it turning "hot" - we should be spending money to adapt to the world as it is now.

Posted by: binky at March 2, 2005 02:07 PM | PERMALINK

Big Country,

I think we're in general agreement. Defense is certainly important, if not critical. What is open to debate is how you plan for what to spend money on. I fully favor spending on defense research (even though most will be wasted, because enough isn't to provide technological break-throughs), but not so much on procurement (buying the things soldiers actually use). But research isn't a big part of the $400 billion defense budget. I have no real problem, today, cutting many of the high-tech weapons systems. We just don't need them (this refers to Binky's comments on "preparing to fight the last war"). The threats to America's interests are seen in the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, and new, shiny fighter planes don't help much with that.

Posted by: baltar at March 2, 2005 02:54 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?