The writing is on the wall for Bush you just won't see it.
Classic Jimmacism as work here.
Your statement is completely unsupported. The only thing you could point to to support that statement is Bush's current approval rating. Except, that doesn't hold water either because both Reagan and Clinton's numbers at this point in their first terms were about 5% LOWER than Bush's are now.
I've already laid out why I think Bush is going to win. I am still condfident that he will. I'd like to know why you disagree. Really now...support whomeever you wish, but at least admit that the vast likelihood is that Bush will be reelected.
that doesn't hold water either because both Reagan and Clinton's numbers at this point in their first terms were about 5% LOWER than Bush's are now.
Their numbers were on the rise at that point. Bush's are not. But we'll see. The recent (apparently) good news about the economy might pay off for him.
I'm glad SDW thinks the field is a joke... proves how good it actually is.
If you've watched letterman lately... you could see who the joke really is.
Now that's really funny. BTW, these are the only relevant candidates:
Clark---Until about six weeks ago, he was a Republican. I was interested in his running to see what impact it would have. At this point, I think he's a big letdown for Dems. His public statements have been incoherent, and then there's the flap about him having to return his public speaking money. All in all, he'll probably get the nod because the party knows Dean is too liberal to win.
Dean--Again, too liberal to win. Karl Rove would LOVE to have Dean as his opponent. Dean's anti-war stance may be popular in San-Francisco and Boston, but it won't go over well in Middle America.
Seriously, you can't believe these guys have a chance.
Can we kill this myth of the conservative media once and for all?
yes. reagan and clinton had low poll numbers at their same times in their presidency. But here's a little tid bit that neither hannity, nor colmes (nor that liar ann coulter) tells you.
Reagan and Clinton had already dropped in their poll numbers early in their presidency and and this point in their terms the were treading UP!
So repeat after me, Reagan and Clinton were trending UP and this time in their presidency, Bush JUNIOR is trending DOWN...
Clark---Until about six weeks ago, he was a Republican.
That's not true. He said he voted for Gore in 2000. He hasn't stated when exactly, but he has said that he became a Democrat basically because of Clinton, so presumably sometime in the 1990s. But I agree that he has been pretty unimpressive so far. Clark looks good on paper, and he looks good on TV, but I haven't seen much there there yet. But I'll give him some time.
I'm still sticking with Lieberman, but it doesn't look good for him. His national poll numbers are good, but he isn't doing well in the first several states with primaries.
Clark---Until about six weeks ago, he was a Republican.
Man, I can't believe you are still posting here. And with this garbage.
I do have to give you credit for not paying as much attention to far-right propaganda. I know you haven't because anyone that has knows that the first thing they say about Clark is his relationship with the Clintons.
Oh, and the best interview with him so far is on www.talkingpointsmemo.com . The site seems to be acting up right now, so I can't post a direct link, but it's a good long interview and you can really see how highly advanced he is at foriegn policy.
Your statement is completely unsupported. The only thing you could point to to support that statement is Bush's current approval rating. Except, that doesn't hold water either because both Reagan and Clinton's numbers at this point in their first terms were about 5% LOWER than Bush's are now.
I've already laid out why I think Bush is going to win. I am still condfident that he will. I'd like to know why you disagree. Really now...support whomeever you wish, but at least admit that the vast likelihood is that Bush will be reelected.
Well the fact of the matter is you haven't been paying attention.
The reasons for Mr. Bush's eventual defeat have been spelled out over several months on this board by myself and others.
You're counting on what you see as the weakness of the democratic party ( albeit you only see the numbers for Bush as leaning in your favor which is bending the truth at best ). What you don't see ( or refuse to see ) is that Bush and his policies are under attack on many fronts now.
The economy doesn't seem to be making that big across the board turnaround that would make a difference. Then he has the nerve to ask for even more money for this broken down, fabricated, ineffective, war on terrorism.
The fact of the matter is.......still no WOMD. Also it's becoming clear that he knew this all along. So his premise was all a lie.
It doesn't matter if people like groverat don't care about that. There are many out there that do.
Nope the cat's out of the bag as far as how Bush operates.
What you seem to be hoping for is a repeat of the 2000 election situation. Bush barely won ( didn't really because of the popular vote ) then.
This time around they know what he's capable of. Despite what you think there are alot of angry people out there who don't have the same kind appreciation for Bush that you do.
So in the end it won't matter if you think the democratic party is weak. The incumbent's an incompetent liar.
They would have to have a real loser running against him and I don't see any of those.
Nope, Bush and company have had their shot. Time to move on from this mess.
You're nuts. Really. The economy is growing at over 3% now and is projected to go to 5%. That's not just recovery...it's robust growth. The economy would still be an issue if the election was this year...but it isn't.
Quote:
ou're counting on what you see as the weakness of the democratic party
That's true. The party is a mess. The reason it's still a mess is that no one with a voice in it has figured out the problem. In fact, from what I hear in public statements, a lot of them don't even think there IS a problem. If you can't even recognize that your own party is in serious trouble nationally, I'm not sure what to say.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is.......still no WOMD. Also it's becoming clear that he knew this all along. So his premise was all a lie.
It doesn't matter if people like groverat don't care about that. There are many out there that do.
Nope the cat's out of the bag as far as how Bush operates.
Perhaps you should investigate Mr. Kay's report on Iraq...and then tell me how Saddam didn;t have a ny WMD. The fact is the media has completely skewed what is really happening in Iraq. The overall direction of the mission is extremely positive. You need to do some research and then talk to me.
2000 Election: "Bush barely won". ----that's true. I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. Saying he "really didn't win because of the popular vote" is hilarious. He won, and that's all there is to say about it. Secondly, don;t lecture me on the popular vote. The media basically pronounced the election over when 75% of the country was still voting. What do you think that did to Republican turnout?
Quote:
So in the end it won't matter if you think the democratic party is weak. The incumbent's an incompetent liar.
There is no basis for that. I've seen no evidence he lied. When and if I do, he loses my vote. Period. As for incompetent, I suppose that's your opinion. I guess you'll point to "alienating the citizens of the world" or some other liberal bullshit. There's not much else for you to bash him on, especially since the economy is getting strong again.
Man, I can't believe you are still posting here. And with this garbage.
I do have to give you credit for not paying as much attention to far-right propaganda. I know you haven't because anyone that has knows that the first thing they say about Clark is his relationship with the Clintons.
Oh, and the best interview with him so far is on www.talkingpointsmemo.com . The site seems to be acting up right now, so I can't post a direct link, but it's a good long interview and you can really see how highly advanced he is at foriegn policy.
I watched Clark's entrance with much interest. I was really interested to see what effect it had. Thus far, he's added further to the division. He, Dean and Kerry are going to kill each other in the primaries. He's been very dissapointing is his public statments. His background is also not stellar, especially at the end of his career. He's probably still the best chance they have.
I don't know about his relationship with the Clintons. I just think he's not the savior he was made out to be. As this point, the field really is incredibly weak. Why do you think he got in? It's because the party elites do want Dean to win the nomination. They know he's far to Left to win against Bush.
We'll see what happens. You guys can get all excited and froth at the mouth about Bush's numbers and Clark's appeal, but the way I see it is this:
1) Bush is going to spend perhaps $100m MORE than his opponent.
2) Bush will employ Karl Rove, who love him or hate him is a politcal genius.
3) Bush will benefit from his leadership in two wars and 9/11
4) Bush's tax cuts willl be seen as effective. Rhetoric doesn't change
the fact that working people (like myself) have seen real increases.
Bush will campaign on making these cuts permanent, while his
opponent will HAVE to come out against it...which is tantamount
to a tax increase. This is why his last tax cut bill was so ingenious. When oppostion to his new plan emerged, he could have just gone for less money over ten years. But, he went for the full amount for only 5 years. This way, he gets to use it as a campaign issue again.
5) The economy will likely improve, with the Dow most likely breaking 10,000 before the end of this year...and perhaps 11,000 by the election. The Nasdaq is up 40% on the year and GDP growth is now strong. Unemployment is now on the down trend as well.
6) Two Words: Aircraft Carrier. You may hate it, but Middle America loves it. Better get used to it, because you will see it a lot.
7) There is simply no strong Democratic candidate. Not one of them has done anything but attack Bush. It hasn't worked for three years and it's not going to work this time. They attacked in 2002 and lost. They attacked in the CA recall and also lost. Voters want an agenda, and they will choose the candidate with one they partly disagree with over candidate that doesn't have one--- every time. "Playing nice with the world" and "we hate the rich" and "I like dolphins and spotted owls" is not going to cut it. Mark my words.
8) Bush has not broken a tax pledge like his father. Instead, he's cut
taxes twice.
9) Bush is unapposed for reelection.
10) CA has a Republican governor. Dismiss that if you will, but it makes a difference.
11) Unlike last time, ALL states, including New Jersey and New York are in play for various reasons.
12) Bush will have a solidified base, which BTW, is what won him the election last time.
13) There is no third party candidate of any meaning. This was the primary factor is Bush 41's loss, with his tax pledge and the economy coming next.
I'll stop there. How about you tell me again why I'm wrong. Or better yet, give me some reasons Clark can win.
I say again: If the economy continues to improve Bush will be unbeatable.
You're nuts. Really. The economy is growing at over 3% now and is projected to go to 5%. That's not just recovery...it's robust growth. The economy would still be an issue if the election was this year...but it isn't.
That's true. The party is a mess. The reason it's still a mess is that no one with a voice in it has figured out the problem. In fact, from what I hear in public statements, a lot of them don't even think there IS a problem. If you can't even recognize that your own party is in serious trouble nationally, I'm not sure what to say.
Perhaps you should investigate Mr. Kay's report on Iraq...and then tell me how Saddam didn;t have a ny WMD. The fact is the media has completely skewed what is really happening in Iraq. The overall direction of the mission is extremely positive. You need to do some research and then talk to me.
2000 Election: "Bush barely won". ----that's true. I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. Saying he "really didn't win because of the popular vote" is hilarious. He won, and that's all there is to say about it. Secondly, don;t lecture me on the popular vote. The media basically pronounced the election over when 75% of the country was still voting. What do you think that did to Republican turnout?
There is no basis for that. I've seen no evidence he lied. When and if I do, he loses my vote. Period. As for incompetent, I suppose that's your opinion. I guess you'll point to "alienating the citizens of the world" or some other liberal bullshit. There's not much else for you to bash him on, especially since the economy is getting strong again.
He lied because there is no other explaination for what happened.
Also there is no evidence that Saddam had WOMD or a way to deploy them shortly before the war.
We could keep on repeating this until the election. The thing is Bush's goose is cooked.
You say he'll win. Well I don't buy it. Fortunately most people out there don't follow the same conservative propaganda rags you do. Or look at the world through right wing glasses.
The question is SDW2001, are we better off now than 3 years ago? :P
Three years ago we were sliding into a recession. The Nasdaq was tanking. People like you, though, thought things were great because you looked at the trailing indicators like unemployment and jobless claims.
We'll see how we are next year. You know, when the election is actually hapenning?
Once again my liberal friends on the AI board miss the point: The economy would be a major factor if the election was this year. But it's not. We'll see how people feel when we are at 5% + GDP growth....which is what is projected.
People like you, though, thought things were great because you looked at the trailing indicators like unemployment and jobless claims.
Actually, right now three years ago, I realized that the false late 90's economy was meeting its realistic match. The election was shaping up to be far worse than I thought.
So no people like me didnt think it was great. And by the way, you are not very bright if you think that the NASDAQ is a leading indicator. It really isnt and I thought we all learned this in the last few years. Some people like you always forget.
There is a core sentiment here though, without a real recession, the jobless claims have been increasing. Bush, the ceremonial leader of the US economy, did not do a damned thing to get the ball rolling two years ago when the economy went on the upswing. In fact, if anything, after our 400 billion dollar debt this year, the stiffling of the US economy will begin again in say two years, or somewhat shortly after the next president is installed be it Bush or otherwise.
I pity the fool who takes on the job. I also pity all of those whose jobs depend upon government expenditure, especially in the social services and sciences. If Bush is reelected, I suspect he will try to cut first the sciences (because what does middle america need with physics?), and then social services as a last resort (because by and by, there are poor republicans too and you dont want to give the dems another group of disgruntled people)...
Three years ago we were sliding into a recession. The Nasdaq was tanking. People like you, though, thought things were great because you looked at the trailing indicators like unemployment and jobless claims.
We'll see how we are next year. You know, when the election is actually hapenning?
Once again my liberal friends on the AI board miss the point: The economy would be a major factor if the election was this year. But it's not. We'll see how people feel when we are at 5% + GDP growth....which is what is projected.
No people like us knew it couldn't last for ever. The longest bull market in history had to end sometime and people back then were already talking about how the market tends to balance out trends.
I read a report recently that the sluggish job growth was a glass of cold water in the faces of economists that thought we would have an easy recovery ahead of us.
It's not that I want this to happen. It's just that I know how things go under someone like Bush. It will get a little better then we'll slide right back ( after the election ).
Plus it's not the only issue.
Tell me SDW. Have we found any solid evidence that Saddam had WOMD and a way to deploy them so as to be considered an imminent threat to the US shortly before the war?
No spin doctoring please. Just a simple yes or no. Any other kind of answer will be considered an admission that there isn't any.
If not then why did our fearless leader push so hard for this war under this pretense?
If he knew ahead of time ( which all the indicators seem to point to ) why did he lie?
If he was given false info from someone else why didn't he check it out more compleatly before committing american dollars and lives to a falsehood?
On the one hand he's a snake in the grass liar. Out to feather his own nest and to hell with the american people.
On the other hand he's incompetent and not worthy of being president.
Take your pick.
No, these are hard questions he'll have to answer before getting the votes. So far all he's been able to come up with is smoke and mirrors ( well that and " please give us 87 billion more for the front line in the war on terrorism in Iraq " ).
By the way the election starts in February. Not too far off. They'll start asking those questions more up front then.
I don't know why I waste my time with you. You don't get your facts straight and they are always slanted by your viewpoint. And yes I will bring up at election time your " I told you so ". Some how I think you'll be absent from this forum for awhile after the election however.
As far as the last 3 years go we could talk about going from a surplus to the largest debt increase in history ( breaking Reagan's record ).
If this was a business he'd be given his walking papers for such mismanagement.
Maybe Bush will win the election........in the bizzaro universe.
With Wesley Clark joining the Democratic presidential candidates, there are enough eager bodies pointed toward the White House to make up a rifle squad. This bunch of wannabes could make things increasingly hot for Dubya ? as long as they don?t blow each other away with friendly fire.
Since Clark tossed his steel pot into the inferno, I've been constantly asked, ?Hack, what do you think of the general??
For the record, I never served with Clark. But after spending three hours interviewing the man for Maxim?s November issue, I?m impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick ? and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the super-smart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.
Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn?t get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.
Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army?s most distinguished war heroes, says: ?Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn?t stop fighting. He stayed on the field till his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned ?em.?
It took months for Clark to get back in shape. He had the perfect excuse, but he didn?t quit the Army to scale the corporate peaks as so many of our best and brightest did back then. Instead, he took a demoralized company of short-timers at Fort Knox who were suffering from a Vietnam hangover and made them the best on post ? a major challenge in 1970 when our Army was teetering on the edge of anarchy. Then he stuck around to become one of the young Turks who forged the Green Machine into the magnificent sword that Norman Schwarzkopf swung so skillfully during Round One of the Gulf War.
I asked Clark why he didn?t turn in his bloody soldier suit for Armani and the big civvy dough that was definitely his for the asking.
His response: ?I wanted to serve my country.?
He says he now wants to lead America out of the darkness, shorten what promises to be the longest and nastiest war in our history and restore our eroding prestige around the world.
For sure, he?ll be strong on defense. But with his high moral standards and because he knows where and how the game?s played, there will probably be zero tolerance for either Pentagon porking or two-bit shenanigans.
No doubt he?s made his share of enemies. He doesn?t suffer fools easily and wouldn?t have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he?s ripped into during the past three decades.
Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a ?Perfumed Prince.? Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong ? the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time._
At the interview, Clark came along without the standard platoon of handlers and treated the little folks who poured the coffee and served the bacon and eggs with exactly the same respect and consideration he gave the biggies in the dining room like my colleague Larry King and Bob Tisch, the Regency Hotel?s owner. An appealing common touch.
But if he wins the election, don?t expect an Andrew Jackson field-soldier type. Clark?s an intellectual, and his military career is more like Ike?s ? that of a staff guy and a brilliant high-level commander. Can he make tough decisions? Bet on it. Just like Ike did during his eight hard but prosperous years as president.
Dear Santa,
All i want for christmas is a debate between General Wesley Clark and Bush JUNIOR....
So no people like me didnt think it was great. And by the way, you are not very bright if you think that the NASDAQ is a leading indicator. It really isnt and I thought we all learned this in the last few years. Some people like you always forget.
The markets can be leading indicators. They aren't always.
Quote:
There is a core sentiment here though, without a real recession, the jobless claims have been increasing. Bush, the ceremonial leader of the US economy, did not do a damned thing to get the ball rolling two years ago when the economy went on the upswing. In fact, if anything, after our 400 billion dollar debt this year, the stiffling of the US economy will begin again in say two years, or somewhat shortly after the next president is installed be it Bush or otherwise.
First, your opening sentecne is false. Go look at the numbers. They're on the decline. Second, Bush orchestrated the most seewping tax reform in twenty years...about two months after the "official" start of the recession. The cut, like the the most recent one, was signed in record time by government standards. Third, the correlation between deficits and "stifiling" of the economy is not clear and never has been. It's rhetoric.
Quote:
pity the fool who takes on the job. I also pity all of those whose jobs depend upon government expenditure, especially in the social services and sciences. If Bush is reelected, I suspect he will try to cut first the sciences (because what does middle america need with physics?), and then social services as a last resort (because by and by, there are poor republicans too and you dont want to give the dems another group of disgruntled people)...
Now you're really showing your ignorance. I mean that literally...not as an insult. Bush has not cut spending in most areas. In fact, he's more of a big government conservative...which is what some in his party are not happy for. The myth of Bush gutting the social services and "science" budgets (as you put it) is jsut that...a MYTH.
The markets can be leading indicators. They aren't always.
First, your opening sentecne is false. Go look at the numbers. They're on the decline. Second, Bush orchestrated the most seewping tax reform in twenty years...about two months after the "official" start of the recession. The cut, like the the most recent one, was signed in record time by government standards. Third, the correlation between deficits and "stifiling" of the economy is not clear and never has been. It's rhetoric.
Now you're really showing your ignorance. I mean that literally...not as an insult. Bush has not cut spending in most areas. In fact, he's more of a big government conservative...which is what some in his party are not happy for. The myth of Bush gutting the social services and "science" budgets (as you put it) is jsut that...a MYTH.
by Robert Kuttner Published on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 by the Boston Globe
.....
You might have missed it, but this is budget season. Thanks to the distractions of war, bizarre budget resolutions are swiftly moving through Congress and will be law by mid-April. For the first time ever in the United States, we are rushing through an immense tax cut in the midst of a war that the president admits will cost at least $74.7 billion just in its first phase. The consequence of this, not surprisingly, is massive cuts in popular outlays.
The budget enacted by the Republican House on a straight-line party vote (with just 12 GOP dissenters) is astonishing. It not only gives Bush his entire tax cut but proposes to balance the budget within six years. The casualties of that process would be monumentally unpopular if the public were not distracted by war.
For starters, the House Republicans are cutting, of all things, veterans benefits. The message, evidently, is God bless our troops when they are dodging bullets but God help them when they come home.
Once, a grateful nation offered vets free medical care. Now, the Republicans want to charge premiums to ''well-to-do'' vets -- with well-to-do defined as earning $26,000 a year. All told, the House budget cuts an amazing $14.6 billion in vets' programs, including money for disabilities caused by war wounds, rehabilitation and health care, pensions for low income veterans, education and housing benefits, and even -- nice touch -- burial benefits.
After World War II, we welcomed back vets with a huge program of education, health, and housing -- the justly celebrated GI Bill of Rights. This time, returning military personnel will not only face cuts in their own benefits as veterans; their kids will face cuts in education and health aid as well.
One of Bush's signature programs was ''No Child Left Behind.'' The House Republican budget cuts education funding by 10.2 percent below the reduced level proposed by President Bush, which had proposed to cut several billion previously approved by Congress.
The Bush administration claims that the war is being fought to make sure weapons of mass destruction will not rain down on Americans. Incredibly, the Republicans are shortchanging the Nunn-Lugar program, the bipartisan effort to dismantle the nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union. Which is the bigger threat: Russia's thousand of loose nukes or Saddam's hypothetical ones?
There's more: $93 billion in Medicaid cuts; a skimpy prescription drug program financed by other massive cuts in Medicare; huge environmental cuts.
As astonishing as the slap to veterans is a slight cut in real outlays for homeland security -- at a time when threats will increase. There is no new money for port security. Even the administration's ''first-responder'' initiative comes from cuts in other law enforcement aid.
Though the war serves as a handy distraction, these budget assaults are not mainly the result of war. Mainly they go to pay for the cost of tax cuts. The final cost of the war, occupation, and rebuilding may reach $200 billion. The cost of the two Bush tax cuts is over $3 trillion. (In a preliminary vote, the Senate voted yesterday to trim Bush's latest tax cut by $350 billion, but this still would have to be reconciled with the House.)
This administration's slogan might as well be, ''Sacrifice is for suckers.'' While young men and women risk their lives in a war whose rationale remains to be proven, the larger Bush program diverts money from services to ordinary Americans, even our homeland security -- to give tax breaks to multimillionaires.
Meanwhile, Vice President Cheney's former company, Halliburton, stands to make a pile of money as a military contractor in Iraq, while Richard Perle, one of the architects of the Iraq war, is to receive $725,000 as a consultant to a telecom company seeking regulatory approval from the Pentagon.
War is never good for democratic deliberation. That's why it's so good for this administration, whose policies would otherwise not withstand public scrutiny.
One final issue lost in the fog of war is the effort by tax reformers to close the loophole that allows unpatriotic US companies to move to offshore tax havens. The IRS puts the cost to the US Treasury at around $70 billion a year -- about the direct cost of the Iraq war. It's an instructive contrast: ordinary American soldiers slogging through the sands of Iraq while Bush's corporate cronies relax on a sandy, tax-free beach.
Quote:
SARBANES REACTS TO BUSH BUDGET CUTS ON HOUSING PROGRAMS
_________ Senator Paul S. Sarbanes (D-MD), the Ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, issued the following statement in reaction to the FY 2004 Bush budget proposals for housing programs:
________ ?I am very disappointed that the Administration has proposed continued cuts for core federal housing programs. The Administration?s budget proposal puts HUD on a path that will lead, in time, to the dismantling of these important programs.
________ ?For the 3rd year in a row, the Administration has proposed significant cuts to the public housing program, a program that serves over 1 million children and over 1 million elderly families. The budget calls for the complete elimination of the successful HOPE VI program, which turns outdated public housing eyesores into healthy, mixed income communities. HOPE VI has helped revitalize whole neighborhoods in many places around the country.
________ ?This cut comes after the Administration?s successful effort to terminate the public housing Drug Elimination Grant Program, as well as its efforts to cut public housing operating and capital funds. All told, the Administration has proposed nearly $2.5 billion of cuts in public housing over the past 3 years.
________ ?The budget also cuts the funding available to public housing authorities for the important rental assistance voucher program. Moreover, their efforts to block grant the program will likely lead to additional cuts in the years to come. The voucher program serves 5 million low-income people, which has been proven to help people move successfully from welfare to work.
________ ?The budget also proposes reductions in a number of other programs, including the Brownfields program ($25 million); the Rural Housing and Economic Development program ($25 million); Empowerment Zones ($45 million); Section 108 loans for economic development ($15 million supporting over $600 million in economic development loans); and housing funds for La Raza, funds used by a highly reputable organization to increase homeownership among Hispanics.
________ ?The Bush Administration has consistently reminded the American public of the importance of housing and homeownership and its commitment to those policies and programs. This budget, however, shows that there is too much empty rhetoric when it comes to providing affordable housing opportunities to the nation?s elderly, poor and working families.?
Quote:
BUSH BUDGET CUTS ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT
Double Digit Drops in Inspections, Civil & Criminal Cases
Read supporting EPA Budget Data
Washington, D.C...Buried in the fine print of President George W. Bush's budget plan for the next fiscal year are significant cuts in the number of inspections, investigations and enforcement actions that could be undertaken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), according to administration records released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
Compared with the current fiscal year, the Bush proposed EPA budget would reduce--
* inspections of facilities by 12 percent;
* criminal investigations by 11 percent; and
* civil investigations by 20 percent -- contributing to a nearly 70 percent drop in civil cases since the 2000 fiscal year.
Bush's plan offers a dual justification for the cuts: 1) by focusing on higher priority areas, fewer enforcement actions would be needed; and 2) shifting greater enforcement authority to the states (embodied in a redirection of $25 million of EPA's operating budget to the states) lessens the need for federal involvement.
"Bush's environmental enforcement plan is a shell game," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, whose organization represents both EPA and state enforcement professionals. "Cutting inspections makes it harder to track compliance, thus impeding targeted enforcement. At the same time, Bush is also slashing the very scientific staff needed to identify what the priority public health needs are."
With respect to the shift of enforcement authority to the states, the Bush plan admits several times that a series of EPA Inspector General reports in 1997 and 1998 found grave problems with the inability of states to identify or prosecute significant environmental violators.
"Despite admitting serious weaknesses with state enforcement efforts, the Bush plan cuts nearly 200 employees from EPA whose jobs are to assure accountability for the federal dollars spent by the states," Ruch added. "Bush's plan allows states to attract industry by pursuing a race to the bottom of environmental protection."
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
The writing is on the wall for Bush you just won't see it.
Classic Jimmacism as work here.
Your statement is completely unsupported. The only thing you could point to to support that statement is Bush's current approval rating. Except, that doesn't hold water either because both Reagan and Clinton's numbers at this point in their first terms were about 5% LOWER than Bush's are now.
I've already laid out why I think Bush is going to win. I am still condfident that he will. I'd like to know why you disagree. Really now...support whomeever you wish, but at least admit that the vast likelihood is that Bush will be reelected.
Originally posted by SDW2001
that doesn't hold water either because both Reagan and Clinton's numbers at this point in their first terms were about 5% LOWER than Bush's are now.
Their numbers were on the rise at that point. Bush's are not. But we'll see. The recent (apparently) good news about the economy might pay off for him.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I'm glad SDW thinks the field is a joke... proves how good it actually is.
If you've watched letterman lately... you could see who the joke really is.
Now that's really funny. BTW, these are the only relevant candidates:
Clark---Until about six weeks ago, he was a Republican. I was interested in his running to see what impact it would have. At this point, I think he's a big letdown for Dems. His public statements have been incoherent, and then there's the flap about him having to return his public speaking money. All in all, he'll probably get the nod because the party knows Dean is too liberal to win.
Dean--Again, too liberal to win. Karl Rove would LOVE to have Dean as his opponent. Dean's anti-war stance may be popular in San-Francisco and Boston, but it won't go over well in Middle America.
Seriously, you can't believe these guys have a chance.
It's what the voters think.
Dean is not too liberal. Kucinich is.
yes. reagan and clinton had low poll numbers at their same times in their presidency. But here's a little tid bit that neither hannity, nor colmes (nor that liar ann coulter) tells you.
Reagan and Clinton had already dropped in their poll numbers early in their presidency and and this point in their terms the were treading UP!
So repeat after me, Reagan and Clinton were trending UP and this time in their presidency, Bush JUNIOR is trending DOWN...
Rinse. Repeat.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Clark---Until about six weeks ago, he was a Republican.
That's not true. He said he voted for Gore in 2000. He hasn't stated when exactly, but he has said that he became a Democrat basically because of Clinton, so presumably sometime in the 1990s. But I agree that he has been pretty unimpressive so far. Clark looks good on paper, and he looks good on TV, but I haven't seen much there there yet. But I'll give him some time.
I'm still sticking with Lieberman, but it doesn't look good for him. His national poll numbers are good, but he isn't doing well in the first several states with primaries.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Clark---Until about six weeks ago, he was a Republican.
Man, I can't believe you are still posting here. And with this garbage.
I do have to give you credit for not paying as much attention to far-right propaganda. I know you haven't because anyone that has knows that the first thing they say about Clark is his relationship with the Clintons.
Oh, and the best interview with him so far is on www.talkingpointsmemo.com . The site seems to be acting up right now, so I can't post a direct link, but it's a good long interview and you can really see how highly advanced he is at foriegn policy.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Classic Jimmacism as work here.
Your statement is completely unsupported. The only thing you could point to to support that statement is Bush's current approval rating. Except, that doesn't hold water either because both Reagan and Clinton's numbers at this point in their first terms were about 5% LOWER than Bush's are now.
I've already laid out why I think Bush is going to win. I am still condfident that he will. I'd like to know why you disagree. Really now...support whomeever you wish, but at least admit that the vast likelihood is that Bush will be reelected.
Well the fact of the matter is you haven't been paying attention.
The reasons for Mr. Bush's eventual defeat have been spelled out over several months on this board by myself and others.
You're counting on what you see as the weakness of the democratic party ( albeit you only see the numbers for Bush as leaning in your favor which is bending the truth at best ). What you don't see ( or refuse to see ) is that Bush and his policies are under attack on many fronts now.
The economy doesn't seem to be making that big across the board turnaround that would make a difference. Then he has the nerve to ask for even more money for this broken down, fabricated, ineffective, war on terrorism.
The fact of the matter is.......still no WOMD. Also it's becoming clear that he knew this all along. So his premise was all a lie.
It doesn't matter if people like groverat don't care about that. There are many out there that do.
Nope the cat's out of the bag as far as how Bush operates.
What you seem to be hoping for is a repeat of the 2000 election situation. Bush barely won ( didn't really because of the popular vote ) then.
This time around they know what he's capable of. Despite what you think there are alot of angry people out there who don't have the same kind appreciation for Bush that you do.
So in the end it won't matter if you think the democratic party is weak. The incumbent's an incompetent liar.
They would have to have a real loser running against him and I don't see any of those.
Nope, Bush and company have had their shot. Time to move on from this mess.
Just wait and see.
You're nuts. Really. The economy is growing at over 3% now and is projected to go to 5%. That's not just recovery...it's robust growth. The economy would still be an issue if the election was this year...but it isn't.
ou're counting on what you see as the weakness of the democratic party
That's true. The party is a mess. The reason it's still a mess is that no one with a voice in it has figured out the problem. In fact, from what I hear in public statements, a lot of them don't even think there IS a problem. If you can't even recognize that your own party is in serious trouble nationally, I'm not sure what to say.
The fact of the matter is.......still no WOMD. Also it's becoming clear that he knew this all along. So his premise was all a lie.
It doesn't matter if people like groverat don't care about that. There are many out there that do.
Nope the cat's out of the bag as far as how Bush operates.
Perhaps you should investigate Mr. Kay's report on Iraq...and then tell me how Saddam didn;t have a ny WMD. The fact is the media has completely skewed what is really happening in Iraq. The overall direction of the mission is extremely positive. You need to do some research and then talk to me.
2000 Election: "Bush barely won". ----that's true. I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. Saying he "really didn't win because of the popular vote" is hilarious. He won, and that's all there is to say about it. Secondly, don;t lecture me on the popular vote. The media basically pronounced the election over when 75% of the country was still voting. What do you think that did to Republican turnout?
So in the end it won't matter if you think the democratic party is weak. The incumbent's an incompetent liar.
There is no basis for that. I've seen no evidence he lied. When and if I do, he loses my vote. Period. As for incompetent, I suppose that's your opinion. I guess you'll point to "alienating the citizens of the world" or some other liberal bullshit. There's not much else for you to bash him on, especially since the economy is getting strong again.
"just wait and see"
---that we will. Don't say I didn't tell you so.
Originally posted by giant
Man, I can't believe you are still posting here. And with this garbage.
I do have to give you credit for not paying as much attention to far-right propaganda. I know you haven't because anyone that has knows that the first thing they say about Clark is his relationship with the Clintons.
Oh, and the best interview with him so far is on www.talkingpointsmemo.com . The site seems to be acting up right now, so I can't post a direct link, but it's a good long interview and you can really see how highly advanced he is at foriegn policy.
I watched Clark's entrance with much interest. I was really interested to see what effect it had. Thus far, he's added further to the division. He, Dean and Kerry are going to kill each other in the primaries. He's been very dissapointing is his public statments. His background is also not stellar, especially at the end of his career. He's probably still the best chance they have.
I don't know about his relationship with the Clintons. I just think he's not the savior he was made out to be. As this point, the field really is incredibly weak. Why do you think he got in? It's because the party elites do want Dean to win the nomination. They know he's far to Left to win against Bush.
We'll see what happens. You guys can get all excited and froth at the mouth about Bush's numbers and Clark's appeal, but the way I see it is this:
1) Bush is going to spend perhaps $100m MORE than his opponent.
2) Bush will employ Karl Rove, who love him or hate him is a politcal genius.
3) Bush will benefit from his leadership in two wars and 9/11
4) Bush's tax cuts willl be seen as effective. Rhetoric doesn't change
the fact that working people (like myself) have seen real increases.
Bush will campaign on making these cuts permanent, while his
opponent will HAVE to come out against it...which is tantamount
to a tax increase. This is why his last tax cut bill was so ingenious. When oppostion to his new plan emerged, he could have just gone for less money over ten years. But, he went for the full amount for only 5 years. This way, he gets to use it as a campaign issue again.
5) The economy will likely improve, with the Dow most likely breaking 10,000 before the end of this year...and perhaps 11,000 by the election. The Nasdaq is up 40% on the year and GDP growth is now strong. Unemployment is now on the down trend as well.
6) Two Words: Aircraft Carrier. You may hate it, but Middle America loves it. Better get used to it, because you will see it a lot.
7) There is simply no strong Democratic candidate. Not one of them has done anything but attack Bush. It hasn't worked for three years and it's not going to work this time. They attacked in 2002 and lost. They attacked in the CA recall and also lost. Voters want an agenda, and they will choose the candidate with one they partly disagree with over candidate that doesn't have one--- every time. "Playing nice with the world" and "we hate the rich" and "I like dolphins and spotted owls" is not going to cut it. Mark my words.
8) Bush has not broken a tax pledge like his father. Instead, he's cut
taxes twice.
9) Bush is unapposed for reelection.
10) CA has a Republican governor. Dismiss that if you will, but it makes a difference.
11) Unlike last time, ALL states, including New Jersey and New York are in play for various reasons.
12) Bush will have a solidified base, which BTW, is what won him the election last time.
13) There is no third party candidate of any meaning. This was the primary factor is Bush 41's loss, with his tax pledge and the economy coming next.
I'll stop there. How about you tell me again why I'm wrong. Or better yet, give me some reasons Clark can win.
I say again: If the economy continues to improve Bush will be unbeatable.
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac,
You're nuts. Really. The economy is growing at over 3% now and is projected to go to 5%. That's not just recovery...it's robust growth. The economy would still be an issue if the election was this year...but it isn't.
That's true. The party is a mess. The reason it's still a mess is that no one with a voice in it has figured out the problem. In fact, from what I hear in public statements, a lot of them don't even think there IS a problem. If you can't even recognize that your own party is in serious trouble nationally, I'm not sure what to say.
Perhaps you should investigate Mr. Kay's report on Iraq...and then tell me how Saddam didn;t have a ny WMD. The fact is the media has completely skewed what is really happening in Iraq. The overall direction of the mission is extremely positive. You need to do some research and then talk to me.
2000 Election: "Bush barely won". ----that's true. I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. Saying he "really didn't win because of the popular vote" is hilarious. He won, and that's all there is to say about it. Secondly, don;t lecture me on the popular vote. The media basically pronounced the election over when 75% of the country was still voting. What do you think that did to Republican turnout?
There is no basis for that. I've seen no evidence he lied. When and if I do, he loses my vote. Period. As for incompetent, I suppose that's your opinion. I guess you'll point to "alienating the citizens of the world" or some other liberal bullshit. There's not much else for you to bash him on, especially since the economy is getting strong again.
"just wait and see"
---that we will. Don't say I didn't tell you so.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/10/commentary/bottomline/
lashinsky/index.htm
THE ECONOMY: SEVEN INDICATORS
_Consumer confidence
_Weak Growth
October 28_
_Retail sales
_Weak Growth
October 15_
_Leading economic indicators
_Rebounding growth
October 20_
_Manufacturing Activity
_Weak Growth
November 3_
_Industrial Production
_Tepid Rebound
October 16_
_Unemployment Rate
_Weak growth
November 7_
_Consumer Price Index
_Disinflation Risk
October 16_
This doesn't look like robust growth to me.
If I'm nuts you're delusional!
He lied because there is no other explaination for what happened.
Also there is no evidence that Saddam had WOMD or a way to deploy them shortly before the war.
We could keep on repeating this until the election. The thing is Bush's goose is cooked.
You say he'll win. Well I don't buy it. Fortunately most people out there don't follow the same conservative propaganda rags you do. Or look at the world through right wing glasses.
Wake up and smell the coffee!
GDP at 3.3%
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Wholesale Prices Up---a good thing.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/10/news.../ppi/index.htm
Jobless claims drop---400,000 is the major number, btw.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/09/news...less/index.htm
Manufacturing:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/09/news...reut/index.htm
Retail sales up 5.8%
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/09/news...ales/index.htm
Leading economic indicators:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/18/news.../lei/index.htm
Tell me things aren't improving. You glance at the bottom page of CNN Money without reading anything. Weak jimmac....weak.
Originally posted by billybobsky
The question is SDW2001, are we better off now than 3 years ago? :P
Three years ago we were sliding into a recession. The Nasdaq was tanking. People like you, though, thought things were great because you looked at the trailing indicators like unemployment and jobless claims.
We'll see how we are next year. You know, when the election is actually hapenning?
Once again my liberal friends on the AI board miss the point: The economy would be a major factor if the election was this year. But it's not. We'll see how people feel when we are at 5% + GDP growth....which is what is projected.
Originally posted by SDW2001
People like you, though, thought things were great because you looked at the trailing indicators like unemployment and jobless claims.
Actually, right now three years ago, I realized that the false late 90's economy was meeting its realistic match. The election was shaping up to be far worse than I thought.
So no people like me didnt think it was great. And by the way, you are not very bright if you think that the NASDAQ is a leading indicator. It really isnt and I thought we all learned this in the last few years. Some people like you always forget.
There is a core sentiment here though, without a real recession, the jobless claims have been increasing. Bush, the ceremonial leader of the US economy, did not do a damned thing to get the ball rolling two years ago when the economy went on the upswing. In fact, if anything, after our 400 billion dollar debt this year, the stiffling of the US economy will begin again in say two years, or somewhat shortly after the next president is installed be it Bush or otherwise.
I pity the fool who takes on the job. I also pity all of those whose jobs depend upon government expenditure, especially in the social services and sciences. If Bush is reelected, I suspect he will try to cut first the sciences (because what does middle america need with physics?), and then social services as a last resort (because by and by, there are poor republicans too and you dont want to give the dems another group of disgruntled people)...
Originally posted by SDW2001
Three years ago we were sliding into a recession. The Nasdaq was tanking. People like you, though, thought things were great because you looked at the trailing indicators like unemployment and jobless claims.
We'll see how we are next year. You know, when the election is actually hapenning?
Once again my liberal friends on the AI board miss the point: The economy would be a major factor if the election was this year. But it's not. We'll see how people feel when we are at 5% + GDP growth....which is what is projected.
No people like us knew it couldn't last for ever. The longest bull market in history had to end sometime and people back then were already talking about how the market tends to balance out trends.
I read a report recently that the sluggish job growth was a glass of cold water in the faces of economists that thought we would have an easy recovery ahead of us.
It's not that I want this to happen. It's just that I know how things go under someone like Bush. It will get a little better then we'll slide right back ( after the election ).
Plus it's not the only issue.
Tell me SDW. Have we found any solid evidence that Saddam had WOMD and a way to deploy them so as to be considered an imminent threat to the US shortly before the war?
No spin doctoring please. Just a simple yes or no. Any other kind of answer will be considered an admission that there isn't any.
If not then why did our fearless leader push so hard for this war under this pretense?
If he knew ahead of time ( which all the indicators seem to point to ) why did he lie?
If he was given false info from someone else why didn't he check it out more compleatly before committing american dollars and lives to a falsehood?
On the one hand he's a snake in the grass liar. Out to feather his own nest and to hell with the american people.
On the other hand he's incompetent and not worthy of being president.
Take your pick.
No, these are hard questions he'll have to answer before getting the votes. So far all he's been able to come up with is smoke and mirrors ( well that and " please give us 87 billion more for the front line in the war on terrorism in Iraq " ).
By the way the election starts in February. Not too far off. They'll start asking those questions more up front then.
I don't know why I waste my time with you. You don't get your facts straight and they are always slanted by your viewpoint. And yes I will bring up at election time your " I told you so ". Some how I think you'll be absent from this forum for awhile after the election however.
As far as the last 3 years go we could talk about going from a surplus to the largest debt increase in history ( breaking Reagan's record ).
If this was a business he'd be given his walking papers for such mismanagement.
Maybe Bush will win the election........in the bizzaro universe.
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c....8608411752525
Reporting for Duty: Wesley Clark
By David H. Hackworth
With Wesley Clark joining the Democratic presidential candidates, there are enough eager bodies pointed toward the White House to make up a rifle squad. This bunch of wannabes could make things increasingly hot for Dubya ? as long as they don?t blow each other away with friendly fire.
Since Clark tossed his steel pot into the inferno, I've been constantly asked, ?Hack, what do you think of the general??
For the record, I never served with Clark. But after spending three hours interviewing the man for Maxim?s November issue, I?m impressed. He is insightful, he has his act together, he understands what makes national security tick ? and he thinks on his feet somewhere around Mach 3. No big surprise, since he graduated first in his class from West Point, which puts him in the super-smart set with Robert E. Lee, Douglas MacArthur and Maxwell Taylor.
Clark was so brilliant, he was whisked off to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar and didn?t get his boots into the Vietnam mud until well after his 1966 West Point class came close to achieving the academy record for the most Purple Hearts in any one war. When he finally got there, he took over a 1st Infantry Division rifle company and was badly wounded.
Lt. Gen. James Hollingsworth, one of our Army?s most distinguished war heroes, says: ?Clark took a burst of AK fire, but didn?t stop fighting. He stayed on the field till his mission was accomplished and his boys were safe. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart. And he earned ?em.?
It took months for Clark to get back in shape. He had the perfect excuse, but he didn?t quit the Army to scale the corporate peaks as so many of our best and brightest did back then. Instead, he took a demoralized company of short-timers at Fort Knox who were suffering from a Vietnam hangover and made them the best on post ? a major challenge in 1970 when our Army was teetering on the edge of anarchy. Then he stuck around to become one of the young Turks who forged the Green Machine into the magnificent sword that Norman Schwarzkopf swung so skillfully during Round One of the Gulf War.
I asked Clark why he didn?t turn in his bloody soldier suit for Armani and the big civvy dough that was definitely his for the asking.
His response: ?I wanted to serve my country.?
He says he now wants to lead America out of the darkness, shorten what promises to be the longest and nastiest war in our history and restore our eroding prestige around the world.
For sure, he?ll be strong on defense. But with his high moral standards and because he knows where and how the game?s played, there will probably be zero tolerance for either Pentagon porking or two-bit shenanigans.
No doubt he?s made his share of enemies. He doesn?t suffer fools easily and wouldn?t have allowed the dilettantes who convinced Dubya to do Iraq to even cut the White House lawn. So he should prepare for a fair amount of dart-throwing from detractors he?s ripped into during the past three decades.
Hey, I am one of those: I took a swing at Clark during the Kosovo campaign when I thought he screwed up the operation, and I called him a ?Perfumed Prince.? Only years later did I discover from his book and other research that I was wrong ? the blame should have been worn by British timidity and William Cohen, U.S. SecDef at the time._
At the interview, Clark came along without the standard platoon of handlers and treated the little folks who poured the coffee and served the bacon and eggs with exactly the same respect and consideration he gave the biggies in the dining room like my colleague Larry King and Bob Tisch, the Regency Hotel?s owner. An appealing common touch.
But if he wins the election, don?t expect an Andrew Jackson field-soldier type. Clark?s an intellectual, and his military career is more like Ike?s ? that of a staff guy and a brilliant high-level commander. Can he make tough decisions? Bet on it. Just like Ike did during his eight hard but prosperous years as president.
Dear Santa,
All i want for christmas is a debate between General Wesley Clark and Bush JUNIOR....
So no people like me didnt think it was great. And by the way, you are not very bright if you think that the NASDAQ is a leading indicator. It really isnt and I thought we all learned this in the last few years. Some people like you always forget.
The markets can be leading indicators. They aren't always.
There is a core sentiment here though, without a real recession, the jobless claims have been increasing. Bush, the ceremonial leader of the US economy, did not do a damned thing to get the ball rolling two years ago when the economy went on the upswing. In fact, if anything, after our 400 billion dollar debt this year, the stiffling of the US economy will begin again in say two years, or somewhat shortly after the next president is installed be it Bush or otherwise.
First, your opening sentecne is false. Go look at the numbers. They're on the decline. Second, Bush orchestrated the most seewping tax reform in twenty years...about two months after the "official" start of the recession. The cut, like the the most recent one, was signed in record time by government standards. Third, the correlation between deficits and "stifiling" of the economy is not clear and never has been. It's rhetoric.
pity the fool who takes on the job. I also pity all of those whose jobs depend upon government expenditure, especially in the social services and sciences. If Bush is reelected, I suspect he will try to cut first the sciences (because what does middle america need with physics?), and then social services as a last resort (because by and by, there are poor republicans too and you dont want to give the dems another group of disgruntled people)...
Now you're really showing your ignorance. I mean that literally...not as an insult. Bush has not cut spending in most areas. In fact, he's more of a big government conservative...which is what some in his party are not happy for. The myth of Bush gutting the social services and "science" budgets (as you put it) is jsut that...a MYTH.
Originally posted by SDW2001
billy:
The markets can be leading indicators. They aren't always.
First, your opening sentecne is false. Go look at the numbers. They're on the decline. Second, Bush orchestrated the most seewping tax reform in twenty years...about two months after the "official" start of the recession. The cut, like the the most recent one, was signed in record time by government standards. Third, the correlation between deficits and "stifiling" of the economy is not clear and never has been. It's rhetoric.
Now you're really showing your ignorance. I mean that literally...not as an insult. Bush has not cut spending in most areas. In fact, he's more of a big government conservative...which is what some in his party are not happy for. The myth of Bush gutting the social services and "science" budgets (as you put it) is jsut that...a MYTH.
War Distracts from Bush's Budget Cuts
by Robert Kuttner Published on Wednesday, March 26, 2003 by the Boston Globe
.....
You might have missed it, but this is budget season. Thanks to the distractions of war, bizarre budget resolutions are swiftly moving through Congress and will be law by mid-April. For the first time ever in the United States, we are rushing through an immense tax cut in the midst of a war that the president admits will cost at least $74.7 billion just in its first phase. The consequence of this, not surprisingly, is massive cuts in popular outlays.
The budget enacted by the Republican House on a straight-line party vote (with just 12 GOP dissenters) is astonishing. It not only gives Bush his entire tax cut but proposes to balance the budget within six years. The casualties of that process would be monumentally unpopular if the public were not distracted by war.
For starters, the House Republicans are cutting, of all things, veterans benefits. The message, evidently, is God bless our troops when they are dodging bullets but God help them when they come home.
Once, a grateful nation offered vets free medical care. Now, the Republicans want to charge premiums to ''well-to-do'' vets -- with well-to-do defined as earning $26,000 a year. All told, the House budget cuts an amazing $14.6 billion in vets' programs, including money for disabilities caused by war wounds, rehabilitation and health care, pensions for low income veterans, education and housing benefits, and even -- nice touch -- burial benefits.
After World War II, we welcomed back vets with a huge program of education, health, and housing -- the justly celebrated GI Bill of Rights. This time, returning military personnel will not only face cuts in their own benefits as veterans; their kids will face cuts in education and health aid as well.
One of Bush's signature programs was ''No Child Left Behind.'' The House Republican budget cuts education funding by 10.2 percent below the reduced level proposed by President Bush, which had proposed to cut several billion previously approved by Congress.
The Bush administration claims that the war is being fought to make sure weapons of mass destruction will not rain down on Americans. Incredibly, the Republicans are shortchanging the Nunn-Lugar program, the bipartisan effort to dismantle the nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union. Which is the bigger threat: Russia's thousand of loose nukes or Saddam's hypothetical ones?
There's more: $93 billion in Medicaid cuts; a skimpy prescription drug program financed by other massive cuts in Medicare; huge environmental cuts.
As astonishing as the slap to veterans is a slight cut in real outlays for homeland security -- at a time when threats will increase. There is no new money for port security. Even the administration's ''first-responder'' initiative comes from cuts in other law enforcement aid.
Though the war serves as a handy distraction, these budget assaults are not mainly the result of war. Mainly they go to pay for the cost of tax cuts. The final cost of the war, occupation, and rebuilding may reach $200 billion. The cost of the two Bush tax cuts is over $3 trillion. (In a preliminary vote, the Senate voted yesterday to trim Bush's latest tax cut by $350 billion, but this still would have to be reconciled with the House.)
This administration's slogan might as well be, ''Sacrifice is for suckers.'' While young men and women risk their lives in a war whose rationale remains to be proven, the larger Bush program diverts money from services to ordinary Americans, even our homeland security -- to give tax breaks to multimillionaires.
Meanwhile, Vice President Cheney's former company, Halliburton, stands to make a pile of money as a military contractor in Iraq, while Richard Perle, one of the architects of the Iraq war, is to receive $725,000 as a consultant to a telecom company seeking regulatory approval from the Pentagon.
War is never good for democratic deliberation. That's why it's so good for this administration, whose policies would otherwise not withstand public scrutiny.
One final issue lost in the fog of war is the effort by tax reformers to close the loophole that allows unpatriotic US companies to move to offshore tax havens. The IRS puts the cost to the US Treasury at around $70 billion a year -- about the direct cost of the Iraq war. It's an instructive contrast: ordinary American soldiers slogging through the sands of Iraq while Bush's corporate cronies relax on a sandy, tax-free beach.
SARBANES REACTS TO BUSH BUDGET CUTS ON HOUSING PROGRAMS
_________ Senator Paul S. Sarbanes (D-MD), the Ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, issued the following statement in reaction to the FY 2004 Bush budget proposals for housing programs:
________ ?I am very disappointed that the Administration has proposed continued cuts for core federal housing programs. The Administration?s budget proposal puts HUD on a path that will lead, in time, to the dismantling of these important programs.
________ ?For the 3rd year in a row, the Administration has proposed significant cuts to the public housing program, a program that serves over 1 million children and over 1 million elderly families. The budget calls for the complete elimination of the successful HOPE VI program, which turns outdated public housing eyesores into healthy, mixed income communities. HOPE VI has helped revitalize whole neighborhoods in many places around the country.
________ ?This cut comes after the Administration?s successful effort to terminate the public housing Drug Elimination Grant Program, as well as its efforts to cut public housing operating and capital funds. All told, the Administration has proposed nearly $2.5 billion of cuts in public housing over the past 3 years.
________ ?The budget also cuts the funding available to public housing authorities for the important rental assistance voucher program. Moreover, their efforts to block grant the program will likely lead to additional cuts in the years to come. The voucher program serves 5 million low-income people, which has been proven to help people move successfully from welfare to work.
________ ?The budget also proposes reductions in a number of other programs, including the Brownfields program ($25 million); the Rural Housing and Economic Development program ($25 million); Empowerment Zones ($45 million); Section 108 loans for economic development ($15 million supporting over $600 million in economic development loans); and housing funds for La Raza, funds used by a highly reputable organization to increase homeownership among Hispanics.
________ ?The Bush Administration has consistently reminded the American public of the importance of housing and homeownership and its commitment to those policies and programs. This budget, however, shows that there is too much empty rhetoric when it comes to providing affordable housing opportunities to the nation?s elderly, poor and working families.?
BUSH BUDGET CUTS ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT
Double Digit Drops in Inspections, Civil & Criminal Cases
Read supporting EPA Budget Data
Washington, D.C...Buried in the fine print of President George W. Bush's budget plan for the next fiscal year are significant cuts in the number of inspections, investigations and enforcement actions that could be undertaken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), according to administration records released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
Compared with the current fiscal year, the Bush proposed EPA budget would reduce--
* inspections of facilities by 12 percent;
* criminal investigations by 11 percent; and
* civil investigations by 20 percent -- contributing to a nearly 70 percent drop in civil cases since the 2000 fiscal year.
Bush's plan offers a dual justification for the cuts: 1) by focusing on higher priority areas, fewer enforcement actions would be needed; and 2) shifting greater enforcement authority to the states (embodied in a redirection of $25 million of EPA's operating budget to the states) lessens the need for federal involvement.
"Bush's environmental enforcement plan is a shell game," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, whose organization represents both EPA and state enforcement professionals. "Cutting inspections makes it harder to track compliance, thus impeding targeted enforcement. At the same time, Bush is also slashing the very scientific staff needed to identify what the priority public health needs are."
With respect to the shift of enforcement authority to the states, the Bush plan admits several times that a series of EPA Inspector General reports in 1997 and 1998 found grave problems with the inability of states to identify or prosecute significant environmental violators.
"Despite admitting serious weaknesses with state enforcement efforts, the Bush plan cuts nearly 200 employees from EPA whose jobs are to assure accountability for the federal dollars spent by the states," Ruch added. "Bush's plan allows states to attract industry by pursuing a race to the bottom of environmental protection."