In 2006, poor women and children will be going to bed hungry. Schools will be without textbooks, chalk and erasers. Disabled veterans will be thrown out into the streets and homeland security will collapse!
These are just some of the dire predictions that surfaced last week after the Washington Post obtained a May 19 budget memorandum leaked by some overpaid bureaucrat at the Office of Management and Budget. It put federal agencies on notice that, if President Bush is re-elected, there may be spending cuts required of virtually all agencies in charge of domestic programs.
Yes! Yes! Let it be so!
After 10 years of throwing caution to the wind and spending as if there were no tomorrow, isn’t it time for a little fiscal restraint?
Democrats have been in a full-court press ever since the memo was published, trying to prove the president is a hypocrite on education, health care, veterans, the environment and a host of other issues he has championed.
To put this little memo in perspective, each new budget has projections that go out five years. The OMB memorandum put agencies on notice that they should “assume accounts are funded at the 2006 level specified in the 2005 budget database.”
For the record, federal budget planners always “assume” there will be budget cuts in the future. That is the only way they can sell us on the present year’s excesses with straight faces. However, when the future arrives, those cuts almost never materialize.
If these 2006 projections actually hold and are incorporated in the budget passed by Congress in 2005, it truly would be a “man bites dog,” out of the ordinary, newsworthy budget.
For argument’s sake, let’s assume the administration will hold to the 2006 numbers projected in the 2005 budget. Just how much of a cut are we talking about here?
It would be roughly $2.3 billion out of the $412.7 billion dollars requested for domestic programs for the 2005 budget, or 0.56 percent. This would be like trying to cut 56 cents out of your weekly $100 grocery budget. Chances are your family would never know the difference.
Let’s take a look at one of the biggest hot-button issues: education.
Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union Foundation reports that when George W. Bush was elected president, the federal government was spending $35.7 billion on education. Under Bush, federal education outlays have increased to $62.8 billion, which is, approximately, a 76 percent increase.
In the 2005 budget, President Bush proposed an additional $1.7 billion increase in discretionary funding for the Education Department. Democrats are complaining because in 2006, that increase would be pared back by $1.5 billion. However, we still would be spending $200 million more on the Department of Education in 2006 then we did in 2004. What restraint!
Bear in mind, our founding fathers wisely left education up to the states. The federal Department of Education wasn’t created until Jimmy Carter became president. It has no official function – it can advise, and gobble tax dollars. Under George W. Bush, it has performed that last function exceedingly well.
Why? Democrats always cry about more federal money for education because federal dollars equal federal control. Mr. Bush thought he could take that particular issue off the table if he threw enough money at it. He should have known better!
What about money for veterans? Bush has increased discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs by a whopping 30 percent since becoming president. Again, Democrats are complaining because there is a slight pullback scheduled for 2006 and some VA hospitals are being eliminated.
Why not? Over the last 50 years, the size of our military has been cut drastically. Many of our veterans are dying off. Also, veterans who have other health-care avenues are using them for the very same reasons people are using UPS and Federal Express instead of the U.S. Post Office. These adjustments are reasonable and responsible.
The Women, Infants and Children nutritional program is another program slated for a slight decrease in 2006. The economy is improving and people who have been unemployed are moving back into the workforce. Why shouldn’t this program be subject to cuts? It would be irresponsible to keep funding WIC at the current level and ignore the present economic trends. However, from the Democrat perspective, no cut is ever justified.
Personally, I’m looking forward to a “man bites dog” budget that contains real cuts instead of increases, but I’m not holding my breath.
The 2 things Trump can do to make himself the GOAT president
Wayne Allyn Root