President Bush's guns-before-butter budget is based on the assumption that selectively controlled Spending will tame the deficit beast.
Published February 4, 2004
President Bush would have Americans believe that the budget he released this week will fund the war against terrorism, halve the deficit and bring spending under control. The 2005 budget is, in other words, an exercise in fantasy.
The entire document is based on a false assumption - that the current $521-billion deficit can be tamed merely by controlling spending. U.S. Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Largo, quickly burst that bubble. "No one should expect significant deficit reductions as a result of austere nondefense discretionary spending limits," Young said. "The numbers simply do not add up."
The budget also ignores the dominant role Bush's massive tax cuts played in creating the deficit. Not only does the president fail to address that issue, he would put a greater burden on future budget-balancing efforts by making $900-billion of those tax cuts permanent. And any effort to limit the alternative minimum tax, which threatens to make more middle-class families pay higher taxes, would deny the government even more revenue.
Responsible spending does have a place if the nation is to climb out of the financial cellar. On that point, Bush's $2.4-trillion budget is misleading, too. The president would give substantial increases to the military and homeland security, yet not a penny is included for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a guns-rather-than-butter budget, one should expect money for the guns.
Besides, who believes Congress will meekly acquiesce to the spending constraints imposed by this budget? A showdown could come soon over the road bill. The Bush budget would limit spending on highways and other transportation to $256-billion, while Congress is looking for well over $300-billion. Projects to improve crumbling and inadequate highways should be popular, and while the president is trying to cast himself as a fiscal conservative, he hasn't vetoed a spending bill yet. We could find out soon enough if he has the guts to do so in an election year.
Only the Agriculture Department and Environmental Protection Agency face substantial spending cuts under the Bush budget. In the USDA, the Forest Service would be hit hardest, and the EPA would see big reductions in spending for wastewater treatment and drinking water plants as well as scientific research into the health effects of pollution. With these choices, the president cements his reputation for hostility toward environmental regulation.
Undoubtedly debate will rage over the Bush budget, yet one of the most important issues doesn't even earn a mention - the $530-billion prescription drug program for retirees. The president has provided no clue as to how he would pay for that program.
If this budget is able to cast President Bush as fiscally responsible, it will be one of the great con jobs of all time.
