Thursday, February 10, 2005


Boxer KO's Bush Over Budget

Boxer's Statement on Bush's budget:
This budget does not include the cost of the war in Iraq. It doesn’t include the cost of the war in Afghanistan. It doesn’t include the true costs of making the tax cuts permanent and it doesn’t include the costs of the President’s plan to destroy Social Security.

Bush said in 2001:
One of the temptations is to use Social Security money for something other than Social Security. Now the good news is is that both political parties and both parties of Congress have declared that we're not going to do that. But I'm going to watch carefully, to make sure that the old temptations of the past don't come back to haunt us when it comes to budgeting your money in the year 2001.
(Emphasis added, lie in the original.)

If Bush and Boxer were having a debate, I would say "Point - Boxer."

I think there is a problem with the link to Boxer's comment.
Link fixed, thanks Mad for email and Scar for comment.

I need more coffee!
Bush's tax cuts and spending cuts appear to be attempts at class warfare. They clearly redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich. The following are exerpts from a New York Times article by economist Paul Krugman. The article is titled "Bush's Class-War Budget."

"It may sound shrill to describe President Bush as someone who takes food from the mouths of babes and gives the proceeds to his millionaire friends. Yet his latest budget proposal is top-down class warfare in action. And it offers the Democrats an opportunity, if they're willing to take it.

First, the facts: the budget proposal really does take food from the mouths of babes. One of the proposed spending cuts would make it harder for working families with children to receive food stamps, terminating aid for about 300,000 people. Another would deny child care assistance to about 300,000 children, again in low-income working families.

And the budget really does shower largesse on millionaires even as it punishes the needy. For example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities informs us that even as the administration demands spending cuts, it will proceed with the phaseout of two little-known tax provisions - originally put in place under the first President George Bush - that limit deductions and exemptions for high-income households.

More than half of the benefits from this backdoor tax cut would go to people with incomes of more than a million dollars; 97 percent would go to people with incomes exceeding $200,000.

It so happens that the number of taxpayers with more than $1 million in annual income is about the same as the number of people who would have their food stamps cut off under the Bush proposal. But it costs a lot more to give a millionaire a break than to put food on a low-income family's table: eliminating limits on deductions and exemptions would give taxpayers with incomes over $1 million an average tax cut of more than $19,000..."

"Here's a comparison: the Bush budget proposal would cut domestic discretionary spending, adjusted for inflation, by 16 percent over the next five years. That would mean savage cuts in education, health care, veterans' benefits and environmental protection. Yet these cuts would save only about $66 billion per year, about one-sixth of the budget deficit.

On the other side, a rollback of Mr. Bush's cuts in tax rates for high-income brackets, on capital gains and on dividend income would yield more than $120 billion per year in extra revenue - eliminating almost a third of the budget deficit - yet have hardly any effect on middle-income families. (Estimates from the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution show that such a rollback would cost families with incomes between $25,000 and $80,000 an average of $156.)..."

The link to the full article is:

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?