Bush to Cut VA Budget

bossanov

Member
Nov 30, 2003
158
0
0
2006 Cuts In Domestic Spending On Table

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 27, 2004; Page A01


The White House put government agencies on notice this month that if President Bush is reelected, his budget for 2006 may include spending cuts for virtually all agencies in charge of domestic programs, including education, homeland security and others that the president backed in this campaign year.

Administration officials had dismissed the significance of the proposed cuts when they surfaced in February as part of an internal White House budget office computer printout. At the time, officials said the cuts were based on a formula and did not accurately reflect administration policy. But a May 19 White House budget memorandum obtained by The Washington Post said that agencies should assume the spending levels in that printout when they prepare their fiscal 2006 budgets this summer.

"Assume accounts are funded at the 2006 level specified in the 2005 Budget database," the memo informs federal program associate directors and their deputies. "If you propose to increase funding above that level for any account, it must be offset within your agency by proposing to decrease funding below that level in other accounts."

J.T. Young, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget, said the memo, titled "Planning Guidance for the FY 2006 Budget," is a routine "process document" to help agency officials begin establishing budget procedures for 2006. In no way should it be interpreted as a final policy decision, or even a planning document, he said.

"Agencies have asked for this sort of direction," Young said. "Budgeting is basically a year-long process, and you have to start somewhere. They'll get more guidance as the year goes along."

The funding levels referred to in the memo would be a tiny slice out of the federal budget -- $2.3 billion, or 0.56 percent, out of the $412.7 billion requested for fiscal 2005 for domestic programs and homeland security that is subject to Congress's annual discretion.

But the cuts are politically sensitive, targeting popular programs that Bush has been touting on the campaign trail. The Education Department; a nutrition program for women, infants and children; Head Start; and homeownership, job-training, medical research and science programs all face cuts in 2006.

"Despite [administration] denials, this memorandum confirms what we suspected all along," said Thomas S. Kahn, Democratic staff director on the House Budget Committee. "Next February, the administration plans to propose spending cuts in key government services to pay for oversized tax cuts."

But with the budget deficit exceeding $400 billion this year, tough and painful cuts are unavoidable, said Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Federal agencies' discretionary spending has risen 39 percent in the past three years. "I think the public is ready for spending cuts," Riedl said. "Not only does the public understand there's a lot of waste in the federal budget, but the public is ready to make sacrifices during the war on terror."

The administration has widely touted a $1.7 billion increase in discretionary funding for the Education Department in its 2005 budget, but the 2006 guidance would pare that back by $1.5 billion. The Department of Veterans Affairs is scheduled to get a $519 million spending increase in 2005, to $29.7 billion, and a $910 million cut in 2006 that would bring its budget below the 2004 level.

Also slated for cuts are the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the Small Business Administration, the Transportation Department, the Social Security Administration, the Interior Department and the Army Corps of Engineers.

Agencies would have the option of preserving current funding levels for programs under their control if they find money from other parts of their budget. But the computer printout contains specific program cuts.

The Women, Infants and Children nutrition program was funded at $4.7 billion for the fiscal year beginning in October, enough to serve the 7.9 million people expected to be eligible. But in 2006, the program would be cut by $122 million. Head Start, the early-childhood education program for the poor, would lose $177 million, or 2.5 percent of its budget, in fiscal 2006.

The $78 million funding increase that Bush has touted for a homeownership program in 2005 would be nearly reversed in 2006 with a $53 million cut. National Institutes of Health spending would be cut 2.1 percent in 2006, to $28 billion, after a $764 million increase for 2005 that brought the NIH budget to $28.6 billion.

Even homeland security -- a centerpiece of the Bush reelection campaign -- would be affected. Funding would slip in 2006 by $1 billion, to $29.6 billion, although that would still be considerably higher than the $26.6 billion devoted to that field in 2004, according to an analysis of the computer printout by House Budget Committee Democrats.

Publicly, the administration has been dismissive of such figures. In February, Young said spending levels beyond 2005 were generated by a computer after administration policymakers set a growth limit of 3 percent for all programs, including defense, but set out multiyear decisions for only a handful of major initiatives.

Education Secretary Roderick R. Paige told House members in February: "It is my understanding that long-term estimates are calculated by formula. OMB has advised us that the numbers beyond 2005 do not reflect detailed policy decisions by this administration. They are roughly held estimates, and so we will have to await the policy decisions to draw conclusions about what the funding level will be in years outside or years in front of 2005."

The May 19 memo contains no such caveats.

"Continuing the strategy of last year's Budget, the 2006 Budget will constrain discretionary and mandatory spending while supporting national priorities: winning the war on terror, protecting the homeland, and strengthening the economy," the memo states.


© 2004 The Washington Post Company
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Funny, he's had a lot of photo ops with his Veteran constituents lately. Guess those will be stopping after November.
 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Funny, he's had a lot of photo ops with his Veteran constituents lately. Guess those will be stopping after November.
Funny, I guess reading isn't your strong suit.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
I guess those who suddenly thought fiscal responsibility was an issue now think Bush isn't spending enough. No suprise - we knew the left was only trying to use "fiscal responsibility" as a political ploy when they infact want MORE spending.

Not enough...too much...not enough... Gottal love Election year politics :roll:

CkG
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
if you actually read and understand the article...the majority of what is referred to as "spending cuts" are decreases in the projected INCREASES in funding for variuous programs. More butchery of the meaning of words by Liberals toi suit their political agenda.

example:

"The administration has widely touted a $1.7 billion increase in discretionary funding for the Education Department in its 2005 budget, but the 2006 guidance would pare that back by $1.5 billion."

gee...so a 1.5 billion dollar INCREASE becomes a cutback???

"Even homeland security -- a centerpiece of the Bush reelection campaign -- would be affected. Funding would slip in 2006 by $1 billion, to $29.6 billion, although that would still be considerably higher than the $26.6 billion devoted to that field in 2004, according to an analysis of the computer printout by House Budget Committee Democrats"

an increase in funding from 26.6 billion in 2004 to 29.6 billion in 2006, a 3 billion dollar increase becomes a "cut" when "analyzed" by DEMOCRATS....gee, why am i not surprised..

this is all crap....
nothing but conjecture compounded by voodoo mathematics and frank butchery of the meaning of words.

get a life..

oh i forgot, your a Bush-Hater...no matter what he does, your against it.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
The thread title says VA budget cut

"The Department of Veterans Affairs is scheduled to get a $519 million spending increase in 2005, to $29.7 billion, and a $910 million cut in 2006 that would bring its budget below the 2004 level"

Now it goes up one year, and comes down by hundreds of millions of dollars more the next.

Explain to me how this is a raise?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I guess those who suddenly thought fiscal responsibility was an issue now think Bush isn't spending enough. No suprise - we knew the left was only trying to use "fiscal responsibility" as a political ploy when they infact want MORE spending.

Not enough...too much...not enough... Gottal love Election year politics :roll:

CkG
No, Sir CAD-foragainst-kindaGUY, we're pointing out Bush is a liar. He has no integrity. He is a two-faced hypocrite who is making all sorts of empty promises to get elected even though he already plans to break them.

Since it's your guy, I'm sure you'll rationalize this as political business as usual. I find it amusing your zeal for honesty and integrity disappear when it's not politically beneficial. Seems a bit hypocritical to me, but I'm not very good at nuance.
 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I guess those who suddenly thought fiscal responsibility was an issue now think Bush isn't spending enough. No suprise - we knew the left was only trying to use "fiscal responsibility" as a political ploy when they infact want MORE spending.

Not enough...too much...not enough... Gottal love Election year politics :roll:

CkG
No, Sir CAD-foragainst-kindaGUY, we're pointing out Bush is a liar. He has no integrity. He is a two-faced hypocrite who is making all sorts of empty promises to get elected even though he already plans to break them.

Since it's your guy, I'm sure you'll rationalize this as political business as usual. I find it amusing your zeal for honesty and integrity disappear when it's not politically beneficial. Seems a bit hypocritical to me, but I'm not very good at nuance.
No, sir Buttfingerer, you're not pointing out that Bush is a liar. You are demonstrating that you are the liar repeating lies, half-truths, and fear mongering born of hatred. Had you bothered to inform yourself fully on this issue you'd know that this, like every other lie born of you and your kind's blind hatred, was much ado about nothing. Go ahead and spread your venom though. Were I in the last throes of political death as you I'd probably resort to the same. Nah, I wouldn't. I've too much respect for myself.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The thread title says VA budget cut

"The Department of Veterans Affairs is scheduled to get a $519 million spending increase in 2005, to $29.7 billion, and a $910 million cut in 2006 that would bring its budget below the 2004 level"

Now it goes up one year, and comes down by hundreds of millions of dollars more the next.

Explain to me how this is a raise?

It is a CADDYism.

"Not enough, too much, Not enough" This is sorta one of those non denial denials. But, in this case it is a non defense defense of a Republican notion regarding the fiscal attitude toward the pawns of their Agenda. Democratic pawns as well.. but, the Dems have a different attitude... and live up to the notion of caring for the veteran.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I guess those who suddenly thought fiscal responsibility was an issue now think Bush isn't spending enough. No suprise - we knew the left was only trying to use "fiscal responsibility" as a political ploy when they infact want MORE spending.

Not enough...too much...not enough... Gottal love Election year politics :roll:

CkG

the articel states that

The funding levels referred to in the memo would be a tiny slice out of the federal budget -- $2.3 billion

No matter how many cuts bush makes to the 2.3 billion dollars he will still be spending like a druken sailor.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
Explain to me how this is a raise?

NO FINAL BUDGET OR LEGISLATION HAS BEEN APPROVED, OR IS EVEN UNDER DELIBERATION BY THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE

Nothing has been "increased" or "decreased"

this is all conjecture and crap. move on....
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The thread title says VA budget cut

"The Department of Veterans Affairs is scheduled to get a $519 million spending increase in 2005, to $29.7 billion, and a $910 million cut in 2006 that would bring its budget below the 2004 level"

Now it goes up one year, and comes down by hundreds of millions of dollars more the next.

Explain to me how this is a raise?

Bush is FOR an increase before he's AGAINST it.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
The thread title says VA budget cut

"The Department of Veterans Affairs is scheduled to get a $519 million spending increase in 2005, to $29.7 billion, and a $910 million cut in 2006 that would bring its budget below the 2004 level"

Now it goes up one year, and comes down by hundreds of millions of dollars more the next.

Explain to me how this is a raise?

Bush is FOR an increase before he's AGAINST it.

This reminds me of the "John Kerry proposed to raise taxes 350 times"

It is interesting to see how groups(media, PACs etc) arrive at numbers :roll:
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Format C:
No, sir Buttfingerer, you're not pointing out that Bush is a liar. You are demonstrating that you are the liar repeating lies, half-truths, and fear mongering born of hatred. Had you bothered to inform yourself fully on this issue you'd know that this, like every other lie born of you and your kind's blind hatred, was much ado about nothing. Go ahead and spread your venom though. Were I in the last throes of political death as you I'd probably resort to the same. Nah, I wouldn't. I've too much respect for myself.
Whatever you say dear.

I note you make no attempt to actually support your boy in the White House, but instead resort to your usual empty, diversionary attacks. That's pretty much all we get from the Bush fan-boys, though.

Bleat on.

:roll:
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
4,505
3,946
136
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Explain to me how this is a raise?

NO FINAL BUDGET OR LEGISLATION HAS BEEN APPROVED, OR IS EVEN UNDER DELIBERATION BY THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE

Nothing has been "increased" or "decreased"

this is all conjecture and crap. move on....

Heartsurgeon can you just go away.

You are such a hypocrite.

On 05/19/2004 06:32 PM you posted in this thread..

Text

Kerry would consider anti-abortion judges

Now you are getting upset when someone points out when bush is proposing something and you get real defensive about it, but when you do it is alright.

Please take off the partisan blinders and use your eyes.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I guess those who suddenly thought fiscal responsibility was an issue now think Bush isn't spending enough. No suprise - we knew the left was only trying to use "fiscal responsibility" as a political ploy when they infact want MORE spending.

Not enough...too much...not enough... Gottal love Election year politics :roll:

CkG

I am all for spending cuts, but Bush should not be given a free pass to campaign on the programs he is planning to cut after the election. If he is planning to cut them, that needs to be flushed out and be part of the decision the voters make in November. He is asking veterans, children, and the poor to sacrifice to balance the budget, while fighting to protect taxcuts for upper income brackets who have not been asked to sacrifice anything, but have been given a break instead.
As far as spending that Bush and GOP grew and now want to cut, they should cut it, but the public should understand before the election that it will be cut. The republicans are trying to buy votes with bad checks.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Explain to me how this is a raise?

NO FINAL BUDGET OR LEGISLATION HAS BEEN APPROVED, OR IS EVEN UNDER DELIBERATION BY THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE

Nothing has been "increased" or "decreased"

this is all conjecture and crap. move on....

So, this is something that this administration wants, however the Republican Congress will decide the fate of these requested cuts.

Now, if a President requests a cut and it happens, then they actually get cut, but if not then it does not. I can accept that.

Now the question evolves. Bush wants this cut, regardless of outcome in Congress. Do you think any President in office (and I will also say candidate for office to include Kerry and Nader) should be advocating cuts in veteran support?

The question is a moral one. Should they be advocating a cut for our servicemen?

My answer is no.

What say you? Yes or no?

Does party loyalty supercede our obligations to our servicemen and women?

Yea or nay?
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
yawn..

Bush hasn't requested anything...
this isn't even to the stage of a proposed budget
it's nothingness being hyped by the Democrats as a "Budget cut"

surely you Bush-Haters have something more substantial you can sink your rotting teeth into.
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
4,505
3,946
136
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
yawn..

Bush hasn't requested anything...
this isn't even to the stage of a proposed budget
it's nothingness being hyped by the Democrats as a "Budget cut"

surely you Bush-Haters have something more substantial you can sink your rotting teeth into.

Why dont you respond to my post ?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
yawn..

Bush hasn't requested anything...
this isn't even to the stage of a proposed budget
it's nothingness being hyped by the Democrats as a "Budget cut"

surely you Bush-Haters have something more substantial you can sink your rotting teeth into.

Why dont you respond to my post ?

Because he's a partisan troll.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
yawn..

Bush hasn't requested anything...
this isn't even to the stage of a proposed budget
it's nothingness being hyped by the Democrats as a "Budget cut"

surely you Bush-Haters have something more substantial you can sink your rotting teeth into.

Weren't republicans bashing Kerry for raising gas taxes with even less to sink their rotting teeth into.
This is a guidance actually sent out to departments. Why would they send a guidance to cut spending if they weren't going to do it?
 

BarneyFife

Diamond Member
Aug 12, 2001
3,875
0
76
This is sad. It should be increasing considering the thousands of maimed soldiers that will need them. I just wouldn't have the heart to cut benefits to someone who has 3 children and had their leg blown away. They fought a war for Bush and they get rewarded with food stamps. Sucks for them.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
One of the institutional problems in the Republican Party is how they take so many veterans for granted. It's a bit like the Democrats and Blacks/Hispanics, which is probably why we are seeing more and more Blacks/Hispanics hooking up with the Republican Party.

But, veterans are very leery of Bush this election year. Yes, Bush will get the vast majority of their votes but his numbers have, I believe, dropped significantly and one of the biggest reasons is the V.A. care issue. Co-pays are up. Waits for care are way up. The quality of care is down many feel because the wonderful V.A. staff are so overworked. (I'd agree since I get my care there. But, the V.A. has some wonderful people in their clinics and hospitals.)

If Republicans care about our vets, and active duty personnel, they will see that they get their benefits BEFORE the fat cats get their tax breaks. With about 20 million or so votes at stake, I'd suggest the Republicans take up elementary arithmetic if they want to win this election.

Right now, they seem to be doing everything to lose their substantial advantage.

-Robert
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,875
282
126
Robert, when have the veterans ever had a GOOD health care system? I remember hearing the horror stories of veterans hospitals from WWII vets, Korean War Vets, Vietnam Vets, etc etc all thru my life. Veterans have always been near the bottom of the food chain for health care and this has been a monkey on the back of every president for eons. America always has given large amounts of praise for thier heros, but have never been willing to foot thier bills effectively. Once all the parades are over those who made the sacrifices and lived to tell the stories are given little more attention or care than any other poverty stricken handicapped citizen. This shame should be shared by all, but expecially those whom have gained the great wealth of our nation as a benefit resulting from the actions of those veterans but whom have denied them time and again for decades. IMHO