The Budget That Changes America
Published February 09, 2006
Imagine for a moment that you believed the only true role of the Federal government was to protect the country, everything was subservient to that one mission. The government was not a parent, did not exist to help you at all, that role was to be filled by your friends, family and maybe some local charities. It had no other responsibilities, none, not the environment, not your children's education, not labor laws, or health services, not urban development or energy policy and not transportation. Now extend that belief a bit and further imagine that you ran a government that provided all those services that you would absolutely love to make disappear. For various reasons you are unable to just close the departments dealing with all those things and send all the employees home.
How would you accomplish that goal? One strategy would be to spend the government to death, starving the programs to the point where you eliminated all but the most vital services, like national defense. You would force the government to use every other dollar of revenue to pay off the deficit that you "built." In addition you could pack departments with friends of big business, who were not only campaign contributors, but advocates of open markets, free enterprise, and no government regulations. They would act to undercut whatever rules and regulations existed.
If for example they didn't like the results of a particular study, they might cut funding, as they did with research into logging recently burnt forests in Oregon. If one of your programs was blocked in Congress you would surreptitiously put the program in the next year's budget anyway, thinking that you could force it on an unsuspecting country, like Social Security and private accounts.
Farfetched you say? I think not. Just take a look at this year's White House budget of $2.77 trillion. It increases the deficit by $423 billion and cuts or eliminates 141 programs. (NYT) Bush additionally proposes cutting $15 billion in cancer research, community policing and other areas while increasing the Pentagon budget 4.8%, or $439.3 billion, and that does not include new financing for Iraq and Afghanistan. There is more, but I think you get the idea.
In ten or fifteen years when folks complain about their taxes wondering where the money goes, make sure you remind them about how much is paying off the debt thanks to policies of our president. When the government says it has no money for the environment, or cancer research, or education, or training, or even body armor, think about this budget, this year.
- The Budget That Changes America
- Published: February 09, 2006
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: U.S.
- Writer: Chip Spear
- Chip Spear's BC Writer page
- Chip Spear's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
well Eric...the GOP strategists call it "starving the Beast" and has been well documented as one of their core goals since Reagan...
nuff said?
Excelsior!
the war is the biggest factor right now and it certainly wasn't done for budgetary/financial reasons
The war itself was not done for financial reasons but that doesn't mean that the administration is not taking advantage of it to score additional points. It clearly has motives on the domestic side that extend beyond the war, and it is actively doing everything possible to realize those goals.
But the GOP is going to blame the Old Folks and the Poor for budget problems, thus opening the door to impoverishing millions of people and driving them into the streets. To serve as a threat against anyone asking for a raise or being insufficiently self-sacrificing to a boss.
Damn, Chip. I wish your suspicions about the budget dismantling the federal government were true, but I just don't see it happening. If that was the plan they could do a way better job than this.
Dave
Really? Come on Dave, you know how well they are at administering the government. Why would this be done any better? I said they had a strategy and a plan. That doesn't mean they can execute it any better than anything else they do, except win elections.
Chip, the cuts they made are minor and meaningless. Everything goes on as before. Even the most severe cuts don't actually reduce any budgets, they just reduce the amount of increase over what was previously planned. The overall budget still went up 3%.
Dave





very sobering and well done Chip, though I'm not sur the intent you ascribe is there