White House warns cuts coming in '06

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-05-27 06:36pm

BushCoMemo!

Washington -- The White House put government agencies on notice this month that if President Bush is re-elected, 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 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.

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' annual discretion.

But the cuts are politically sensitive, directed at popular programs that Bush has been touting on the campaign trail.

The Education Department, a nutrition program for women and children, Head Start, home ownership, job training, medical research and science programs all face cuts in 2006.

"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.

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 cuts in named programs.

"Despite (administration) denials, this memorandum confirms what we suspected all along," said Thomas 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."

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-27 06:38pm

Oh good, that means we can get plenty of F/A-22s to defend against suicide bombers!

It's win-win for Uncle Sam.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-05-27 06:40pm

Don't tease us, Shrubby! You know just as well as anyone that you aren't going to cut a goddamn thing.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-05-27 06:41pm

'Crap, the fiscal conservatives are on my ass! Must promise not to pork so much!'

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-05-27 06:45pm

Hehe. Spend like crazy, then cut like crazy. It's like an upswing and a downswing.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-05-27 07:53pm

Can we cut the "Federal Bureau of Noxious Weed Control?" I think that's a state problem.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-27 09:08pm

Looks like Paul Krugman was right. Dubya really does want to turn this country into a larger version of Argentina: a bankrupt fascist police state led by an unelected junta constantly at war with either foreign bogeymen or its own citizens. Reichsmarshall Ashcroft has already told the Supreme Court that he has the right to "disappear" anyone he wants.

I just thought that like other supply-siders, he couldn't add or subtract.

The big difference is that at least Numbnuts attacks others for oil, while Galtieri invaded the Falklands for a few flocks of sheep.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-05-27 09:17pm

Elfdart wrote:Looks like Paul Krugman was right. Dubya really does want to turn this country into a larger version of Argentina: a bankrupt fascist police state led by an unelected junta constantly at war with either foreign bogeymen or its own citizens. Reichsmarshall Ashcroft has already told the Supreme Court that he has the right to "disappear" anyone he wants.

But in the worst case, Shrubby is only going to be President for another 5 years. He will never be "president for life", unlike Argentina's past dictators. There is no way he is going to be able to get rid of the constitutional ammendment that restricts presidents to 2 consecutive terms.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-05-27 10:47pm

[qoute] But in the worst case, Shrubby is only going to be President for another 5 years. He will never be "president for life", unlike Argentina's past dictators. There is no way he is going to be able to get rid of the constitutional ammendment that restricts presidents to 2 consecutive terms.[/quote]

While highly unlikely, it COULD happen if the circumstances were right and there were a grave enough threat. The congress and courts aren't infallible, especially in a time of criss when scapegoats come out to play. Hopefully we will neve rhave such a catastrophe to let something like that happen.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-05-27 10:47pm

Edit: Crises

LMSx · Post by **LMSx** » 2004-05-27 11:38pm

Batshits.

Bush is bad for the country, sure, but you guys are just a *little* too crazy and paranoid.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-05-28 10:59pm

While I will be hoping that Bush gets his next term, even I shudder to think of a "President for Life" Shrubmeister.

Yikes.