So, next time you hear about......

[Art]

When you're at a party, or on campus, or discussing a topic with a friend here, like Gbear, what is likely to be heard time and again is that President Bush is offering a federal budget that drastically increases the defense budget while ignoring things like education. You will hear this over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over and most people will just believe it's true.

For the record, so you can toss this figure out there, departmentally Bush is proposing a 4 percent defense increase. He's proposing a 5.6 percent education spending increase. Bush is proposing a 7 percent increase in spending on Health and Human Services. The Veterans Administration receives an addition 7.7 percent with one of the greatest increases in health spending within the VA.

There are layers within many categories, such as much of what is proposed for HHS is mandatory increases in Medicare that are required for some reason to be in the budget by law. But, it is stark and obvious simply looking at the breakdown as provided by the Washington post that Bush is proposing a 4 percent defense increase, while increasing education and HHS more, and yet, this will never be uttered. Even within the breakdown provided by the Post, you see their political views.

The defense increase is decribed in terms of having big winners within the layers of the 4 percent increase Bush is proposing. In HHS, the 7 percent increase Bush wants is dismissed because HHS has 81 percent of its budget devoted to medicare and medicaid and therefore, somehow, because Bush didn't go beyond even the mandatory spending increases by greater amounts, it is made to sound as less of a plan.

Education's 5.6 percent increase is humorously unable to be countered by any factual measurement, so, the Post actually has this description, "Democrats say the increase is not as large as it appears." It's fascinating reading this type of thing. On a strict percentage basis, Bush is actually increasing education and HHS more than defense, but, the defense budget will be described as massive while education is not as large as it appears .

The spin has already begun. To my way of thinking, it's exactly as large as it appears. .

[Kilmer17]

It's all for the rich anyway

[luckydevil]

Its politics. If a Democrat did this, every liberal would cheer him

[Art]

Ding LD.

This is one of the most brave budgets by a President. He's kept spending largely down to the rate of inflation in most areas, except for the areas where there's mandatory increases. I was surprised as hell to read this and see how some of what he had called for earlier in his Presidency has been left off the table. That's good.

Another thing that MUST be considered here is if the government is in deficit when the President is talking about largely nominal budget increases, then the government has a problem. If the government is so out of whack that rate of inflation increases in spending leaves us with projected deficits, this country is in serious trouble. If he gets this through the next step is actually forcing the government to cut back. Wouldn't that be a bold step .

[luckydevil]

This is a good article by Zell Miller.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002965

The Beltway Diet

Government has too many sacred cows. Time to slaughter 'em.

BY ZELL MILLER

Sunday, January 26, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST

Let's see now. What bountiful feasts do we have spread before us in this tax-cut debate? There's the filet mignon and baked Alaska on the white tablecloth of the Republicans. There's the burgers and brownies on the limp paper plates of the Democrats. But there's something missing from both these enticing meals. Where's the spinach? Where's the sacrifice?

Both parties want Congress to do what we've always done: scarf up their feast, belch loudly and say "Charge it" as we get up from the table.

When I was growing up without a father in the hard scrapple of Appalachia, my mother used to tell my sister and me, "Take what you want, sayeth the Lord; take it and pay for it." I was a grown man before I realized that is not in the Bible. It was just my mother's scripture. It also is one the truest laws of life: You can have anything in life, but you must pay for it. Here in Washington, that rule has been twisted into: You can have anything in life, and someone else will pay for it.

There's no one on this Hill or in this country who likes tax cuts more than I do. I've never seen one too big for me to swallow without water. I'd even be willing to pass both the president's plan and the Democrats' plan--as long as we were willing to cut federal spending at the same time. I just firmly believe that government takes too much from our taxpayers--big and little alike.

So, as both parties spoon those delicious tax cuts onto our plates, let's save room for the spinach. Let's suck in our gut, tighten our belts and spend these precious tax dollars only on what's really important.

Unfortunately, in this citadel of "champagne wishes and caviar dreams," there is hardly ever any talk--much less, action--on cutting spending. It's often mentioned on the campaign trail, but amnesia strikes as soon as the candidates win and get inside the Beltway. And then, each year, as sure as the swallows return to Capistrano, every federal program that the mind of man, woman and K Street can conceive finds its way into the budget and settles into a permanent home. Not for just a day, or a year, but forever.

I think it's time to turn up the volume on the theme from "The Bridge on the River Kwai" and begin a forced march to reality. In this time of competing tax cuts, we ought to remember why the people don't like taxes in the first place. When I was a boy growing up in the tiny town of Young Harris, my mama was the mayor and folks came to our house to pay their taxes. And I remember hearing them grumble each time when they turned over their hard-earned dollars. What it taught me was that people don't complain about taxes because they are selfish or stingy. They complain because they simply don't believe they're getting their money's worth.

No one has ever spoken about taxes more eloquently than that great patriot Thomas Paine: "It is not the produce of riches only, but of hard earnings of labor and poverty. It is drawn even from the bitterness of want and misery."

Congress forgets all too often that there is no such thing as "government money." There is only taxpayers' money. I got into government because I've always believed that government can help people. But good government doesn't mean big government. Good government means providing basic services efficiently. Good government means not just asking how to make a program more efficient, but asking what would happen if we got rid of the program entirely. Why waste time making something more efficient if we don't need it? There's a whole herd of sacred cows grazing in the lush green pastures of the federal government. Even though many of them quit giving milk long ago, we still fund them. I say take 'em out and shoot 'em.

It's no secret that I like this president. He's the right man and I want to support him. But federal spending has gone wild and someone must take the lead in stopping it. Most functions of government grew by at least 5% a year for each of the last four years. Some grew by twice that much. That's got to stop.

We now have the biggest, most expensive federal government in history. Federal employees are thicker than maggots on a rotting carcass. So, why not start by abolishing vacant positions in every department except Defense and Homeland Security? Congress could set the example by cutting our own staff to show that we are willing to stop feeding the hungry beast.

When it comes to out-of-control federal spending, you don't find many members of Congress who have made it a high priority. In the Senate, there's John McCain and the pork projects he ridicules; there's George Voinovich, Russ Feingold, Judd Gregg; there's Larry Craig with his balanced-budget amendment. That's not even enough for a baseball team. And yes, I'm guilty of not supporting them as I should have.

It's been said the Democrats blame the deficit on Republican tax cuts and the Republicans blame the deficits on the Democrats' social programs. And as long as they can blame each other, they will never solve the problem.

So, we need that tax-cutting Texan to also become a budget-cutting president. We need more members of Congress to decide that now is the time to cut taxes and at the same time tighten our belt. It's simple: Collect fewer dollars; spend fewer dollars. In the '80s and '90s, we "drank that free bubble up and ate that rainbow stew," as Merle Haggard sings. Now, it's time to go on a diet.

Mr. Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia