Whatever the amount ends up being, rest assured it won’t be enough for Congress. $2.7 trillion is like pouring out ten pounds of feed for 535 hogs.
What’s in the budget?
The AP calls it “austere.” Reuters says it “cuts domestic programs from community policing to Medicare.” The Washington Post: “drains money from two-thirds of federal agencies, continues a large military buildup” CNN: “Teachers, doctors protest budget cuts.” USA Today: “Bush’s budget big on security, Medicare, domestic programs trimmed.” Even Republicans are critics.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., called the cuts in education and health “scandalous.” Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, is “disappointed and even surprised.”
All of which raises the question: Did anyone actually bother to read the budget? Apparently not. Because a casual look through the document finds that few of the claims holds water.
Merline’s column starts off with the good news (when the WaPost, AP, Reuters, USA Today, CNN, Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe are upset, you know you’re on to something) but all adds up to the same old thing– hold on to your wallet! Read the rest here.
Inside-the-beltway and in the mainstream media, the Bush budget is getting the usual “poor, minorities, women and the sick hardest hit” reporting.
At the same time there is heavy reporting of “increases in military and homeland security spending“, which means that Al Qaeda and rogue nations toying with nuclear power could also be “hardest hit”. Yes, sometimes tax dollars are spent responsibly.
Bush is being praised by some for at least attempting to gradually reduce the deficit, but once all the deals are cut, this attempt to reduce the deficit will have been yet another failed attempt to hang-glide in a cinder block.
For the wonkiest among us, here’s the entire budget. Read it in its purest form before it gets chewed up and spit out by the hogs at the trough.