2.07.2006

The bread & butter of Bush's budget

The Bush master plan still includes extending and expanding tax cuts while at the same time reducing spending on 141 programs, something Clinton economic advisor Gene B. Sperling is like "a man who leases three fully loaded Hummers, finds it stretches his family's budget to the breaking point, and decides his family has to start buying cheaper peanut butter" (as paraphrased by the New York Times).

2 comments:

Aaron said...

We need to prepare for the Baby Boomers and start cutting back on government spending. I think Bush’s budget did not go far enough in trimming government coffers.

In about 10 - 15 years, there will be no way that we can afford to pay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

We could radically increase taxes. However, this will cripple future generations. We can increase the budget deficit. But it will lead to serious systemic risks to our economy. We should reduce benefits promised during a previous era of prosperity in our country. Of course, we can try a combination of all three, but we would be left with a situation akin to eurosclerosis.

We must make the painful choice of reducing benefits and reshaping Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to care for the very neediest in our country. It will be hard, but the demographic trend is inexorable.

Reality shouts that this is not a Republican or Democrat issue.

Anonymous said...

Seems Bush has already crippled future generations by making Clinton's surplus into a huge deficit, thanks in large part to a war that'll cost a trillion dollars. Your solution makes sense in a way, but it ignores lots of other wasteful items in the Bush agenda. And cutting programs for the poor and elderly before cutting projects dear to the Ted Stevens' of government is a lame idea, regardless of what party affiliation you claim.

Rich Jameson