FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY and how bush always gets it wrong

Clearly his logic doesn't make any sense to me or anyone else who has dealt with a budget before in their life.

President Bush made clear that, in his second term, he'll spend more than just political capital. Bush will push for " a potentially multitrillion-dollar smorgasbord (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=228579) " of expensive schemes from the right-wing wish list and tax cuts.

Lost of Surplus:
So we went from 4 trillion in surplus to 7.4 trillion in debt in 4 years, that's 11.4 trillion squandered. I understand that the tech bubble has burst, but how the money was spent was obviously the wrong way. More jobs were lost then necessary, and with the extra money going mainly to the rich 1%.

history Lesson:
Bush is using the same techniques that Reagan used in the 80's that made this country hugely indebted. This concept of giving money to the rich and hoping for better structure of industry is a noble concept, but very flawed. The term Reagan used for this concept was the "Trickle Down Effect". However what actually happens is more of a "Sponge Effect". The rich soaks up a majority of the excess and then lets maybe a few drops trickle down to the middle class.

Reagan, before G.W.Bush was one of the worst presidents when dealing with budget. His concepts gave a huge debt in this country and many people suffered, especially the working poor. Many companies, like the automotive, were being outsourcing and/or going into bankruptcy. Is it a coincidence that we got the same problem today with Bush as president. We are losing tech jobs like the 80s lost the automotive industry. Places like Detroit have never recovered from this disaster, and I feel that places in California will be the next Detroit.


BUSH REFUSES TO MAKE TOUGH CHOICES TO BALANCE THE BOOKS: Bush claimed he could meet his deficit-reduction goals by imposing " spending discipline (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26458-2004Nov4.html) " on Congress. At the same time, Bush made clear that "he would not cut defense or homeland security spending, and he has promised more spending for education." The remaining programs that Congress has control over -- transportation, law enforcement, veterans, agriculture, housing, health research, space exploration and national parks -- "totaled $346.5 billion in 2004, not much less than the budget deficit." Even if Congress eliminated all of those programs it still wouldn't be enough to cover the cost of the deficit plus Bush's Social Security schemes.

BUSH'S BUDGET PROMISES 'MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE': President Bush promised yesterday "he would add personal investment accounts to the Social Security system, simplify the tax code without raising taxes and cut the budget deficit in half, all before he leaves office in 2009." According to budget and policy analysts interviewed by the Washington Post, Bush's plans and not only unrealistic but, in all likelihood " mathematically impossible (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26458-2004Nov4.html) ." Bush suggested that deficit hawks "look at our budget that we've submitted to Congress, which does, in fact, get the deficit down, cut in half in five years." But according an analysis (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5773&sequence=0) by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Bush's budget " would not fulfill that promise (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26458-2004Nov4.html) ."



BUSH'S BUDGET DOESN'T INCLUDE MONEY FOR WAR, OTHER PRIORITIES: For starters, Bush's budget " does not include any additional costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26458-2004Nov4.html) ." The bill for those two operations this year alone " may approach $100 billion. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=228579) " Bush's budget also "does not include the cost of a Social Security reform plan that includes the personal investment accounts Bush is demanding." That plan, even in the short run, would cost between $100 billion and $150 billion per year.



DEFICIT A THREAT TO AMERICANS' STANDARD OF LIVING: Economists are worried that the growing budget deficit could "send the U.S. currency into a tailspin." If that occurred, it "would erode U.S. living standards (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26581-2004Nov4?language=printer) below what they would be by making imported goods more expensive."



REACH OUT TO RED AMERICA: Rep. Mike Pence (R-ID), a leader of House conservatives, said " restoring luster to our reputation as fiscal conservatives (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=228579) will be a very high priority for the Republican majority," which includes "moving toward a balanced budget." E-mail Mike Pence's hometown newspaper cut and paste:letters@thestarpress.com in Muncie, Ind., and urge Pence, for the sake of future generations, to keep his promise -- even if it means standing up to the Bush administration.