QUOTE ( The New Democrat)
Friday, April 29, 2005
A Comment on the Budget
In 1993, Republicans stated, quite boldly, that any spending of the Social Security trust fund would be used for Social Security. Riding on this agenda, Republicans were swept into Congress in 1994 to do as they promised. These social-minded Republicans, precursors to today’s “compassionate conservatives,” sold the American public on their plan to keep Social Security afloat. My, how times have changed.
Republicans still discuss the importance of Social Security, calling for bi-partisanship over obstructionism, decisively opting to bear the heavy torch of Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s unique idea of a social safety net for the elderly. Doubtless, Social Security has suffered many transmogrifications and perversions in the decades since its creation, and no statistics-minded American can deny that Social Security is in dire need of some kind of reform. The question is, however: is the Republican Party, led by the ambitious plan of President George W. Bush and taking marching orders in Congress by Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Bill Frist, the party best qualified to make the changes?
On the same day that President Bush chose to deliver a primetime press conference to discuss and clarify his Social Security plan, House Republicans united to open the debate on the budget for fiscal year 2006. Instead of the normal three-day discussion period, where the budget can be cracked open and investigated by both parties and fully scrutinized, Republicans opted for a three-hour long debate session. If you’ve ever seen the budget, you’d know it’s no kind of lunchtime reading. The goal, quite clearly, was to pass through the budget while giving Democrats and dissenting Republicans the minimum amount of time available to discuss it.
What is worse, the budget proposed by House Republicans, despite being funneled through both houses in exceedingly close votes, is badly flawed. It is so poor in fact that the Republican-controlled House could only pass it by a vote of 214-211, and in the house, 52-47. Now what is more disturbing: that this $2.56 trillion budget is bloated with unnecessary spending and dangerous cuts, or that it is the trimmed-down version of what the White House requested from Congress? The picture gets even darker when it is brought out that Republicans, in what can only be seen as a brash act of hubris, raided the Social Security trust fund for fiscal years 2006 – 2010 to fund a massive, $106 billion tax cut. Other, lesser-known cuts were $6.6 billion to old-age pensions and $2 - $3 billion in agriculture. All at the cost of a $382 billion deficit.
If the bulk of these cuts did not go to finance $106 billion in top-bracket tax cuts, perhaps the budget could have withstood the light of three days’ debate. Only 2% of the proposed budget goes towards our massively under-funded and under-equipped Department of Homeland Security, and Republicans in Congress have already begun warning some states that they may see no Homeland Security funding this year. With the exception of 2% to Homeland Security and a general 4.8% rise in defense spending, all other programs have to suffer a .8% cut.
Does raiding the Social Security trust fund and creating an estimated $382 billion deficit qualify as good fiscal discipline? Does tearing $40 billion from essential Medicaid programs symbolize a care for the safety nets Republicans held so high in 1993? What of the revered Republican mantle of “National Security,” undercut by poor funding and general apparent disinterest in the Department of Homeland Security? Is this the Republican Party that campaigned in 2004 as the party of defense, domestic values and fiscal discipline, or is this a party that has succumbed to the hubris of power? Republicans today chart a perilous path for 2006 and 2008, and only Republicans can adjust course away from the dangerous and reckless arrogance that comes with great power. The question is, will it happen?
Posted at 01:09 pm by Max
Comments (3) Permalink Trackback (0)
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
A Comment on the Budget
In 1993, Republicans stated, quite boldly, that any spending of the Social Security trust fund would be used for Social Security. Riding on this agenda, Republicans were swept into Congress in 1994 to do as they promised. These social-minded Republicans, precursors to today’s “compassionate conservatives,” sold the American public on their plan to keep Social Security afloat. My, how times have changed.
Republicans still discuss the importance of Social Security, calling for bi-partisanship over obstructionism, decisively opting to bear the heavy torch of Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s unique idea of a social safety net for the elderly. Doubtless, Social Security has suffered many transmogrifications and perversions in the decades since its creation, and no statistics-minded American can deny that Social Security is in dire need of some kind of reform. The question is, however: is the Republican Party, led by the ambitious plan of President George W. Bush and taking marching orders in Congress by Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Bill Frist, the party best qualified to make the changes?
On the same day that President Bush chose to deliver a primetime press conference to discuss and clarify his Social Security plan, House Republicans united to open the debate on the budget for fiscal year 2006. Instead of the normal three-day discussion period, where the budget can be cracked open and investigated by both parties and fully scrutinized, Republicans opted for a three-hour long debate session. If you’ve ever seen the budget, you’d know it’s no kind of lunchtime reading. The goal, quite clearly, was to pass through the budget while giving Democrats and dissenting Republicans the minimum amount of time available to discuss it.
What is worse, the budget proposed by House Republicans, despite being funneled through both houses in exceedingly close votes, is badly flawed. It is so poor in fact that the Republican-controlled House could only pass it by a vote of 214-211, and in the house, 52-47. Now what is more disturbing: that this $2.56 trillion budget is bloated with unnecessary spending and dangerous cuts, or that it is the trimmed-down version of what the White House requested from Congress? The picture gets even darker when it is brought out that Republicans, in what can only be seen as a brash act of hubris, raided the Social Security trust fund for fiscal years 2006 – 2010 to fund a massive, $106 billion tax cut. Other, lesser-known cuts were $6.6 billion to old-age pensions and $2 - $3 billion in agriculture. All at the cost of a $382 billion deficit.
If the bulk of these cuts did not go to finance $106 billion in top-bracket tax cuts, perhaps the budget could have withstood the light of three days’ debate. Only 2% of the proposed budget goes towards our massively under-funded and under-equipped Department of Homeland Security, and Republicans in Congress have already begun warning some states that they may see no Homeland Security funding this year. With the exception of 2% to Homeland Security and a general 4.8% rise in defense spending, all other programs have to suffer a .8% cut.
Does raiding the Social Security trust fund and creating an estimated $382 billion deficit qualify as good fiscal discipline? Does tearing $40 billion from essential Medicaid programs symbolize a care for the safety nets Republicans held so high in 1993? What of the revered Republican mantle of “National Security,” undercut by poor funding and general apparent disinterest in the Department of Homeland Security? Is this the Republican Party that campaigned in 2004 as the party of defense, domestic values and fiscal discipline, or is this a party that has succumbed to the hubris of power? Republicans today chart a perilous path for 2006 and 2008, and only Republicans can adjust course away from the dangerous and reckless arrogance that comes with great power. The question is, will it happen?
Posted at 01:09 pm by Max
Comments (3) Permalink Trackback (0)
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
New Democrat
