Bush's budget slashing
- Thread starter 2-0-Sixx
- Start date
Why do you think that corporations have tons of cash flow and revenues financed and leveraged with debt. to prove that they don't have or make money. They use negative positions to offset what they make.
ultimately they siphon off profits to executives who do the same thing. case study Bernie Ebbers.
To be and stay rich you have to be increase cash flow and stay "broke" This is why corporations appropriate money as soon as they get it. Rich people do the same.
Use your income to finance other investments and at tax time you balance everything out and you have either a small gain or small loss.
Listen to what alotta rich people say. They keep all there monies invested and only liquidate positions to get cash. (this is usually done with losing investments).
how can you tax a cashed in loss (a write-off)? you can't.
as long as you don't keep income/profits they can't be taxed. remember the gov't can only tax what you get and what you spend. if you can balance your profits against your losses what do you have? a whole lot of nothing that you can do alot with.
ultimately the influence of money is more important of having it.
ultimately they siphon off profits to executives who do the same thing. case study Bernie Ebbers.
To be and stay rich you have to be increase cash flow and stay "broke" This is why corporations appropriate money as soon as they get it. Rich people do the same.
Use your income to finance other investments and at tax time you balance everything out and you have either a small gain or small loss.
Listen to what alotta rich people say. They keep all there monies invested and only liquidate positions to get cash. (this is usually done with losing investments).
how can you tax a cashed in loss (a write-off)? you can't.
as long as you don't keep income/profits they can't be taxed. remember the gov't can only tax what you get and what you spend. if you can balance your profits against your losses what do you have? a whole lot of nothing that you can do alot with.
ultimately the influence of money is more important of having it.
US budget slashes social spending to fund war and tax cuts for the rich
By Bill Van Auken
3 February 2006
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
In the wake of George W. Bush’s State of the Union address, the White House and the Republican-led Congress have moved swiftly to implement a series of budget measures that will slash funding for health care and education while allocating vast new sums for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and tax cuts for America’s wealthy elite.
The House of Representatives approved a $39.5 billion five-year budget-cutting package on Wednesday. More than half of the savings has been carved out of funding for Medicare and Medicaid, the principal programs that provide minimal health care coverage to the elderly, poor and disabled.
On Thursday, Congressional sources reported that the White House was preparing to ask Congress for another $70 billion to pay for the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This comes on top of $50 billion approved just last December, and brings the total allocated for these military interventions in little over four years to more than $420 billion, the vast majority of it spent on the aggression against Iraq.
Before the year is out, the administration will seek yet another supplemental appropriation to pay for the military operations in the two countries. It is anticipated that before the end 2006, the cost of these wars will top the $500 billion mark—ten times the amount estimated by the administration prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Meanwhile, the Senate continued debate on a $56 billion tax cut that has already been passed by the House.
Taken as a whole, these legislative initiatives will deepen the social misery in America while widening the already enormous gulf separating a tiny financial oligarchy from the masses of working people. They further underscore American capitalism’s growing dependence upon militarism to offset the decline in its economic position in the world arena.
The House bill is misnamed the Deficit Reduction Act. In fact, it will do next to nothing to reduce the US budget deficit, which is expected to rise to $360 billion this year. While draconian in their impact on those who depend on the programs being slashed, the budget cuts hardly make a dent in this deficit and account for less than 3 percent of the $14.3 trillion in federal spending projected over the next five years.
The House leadership and the Bush White House praised the budget package for taking what one Republican congressman termed a “first step toward long-term fiscal discipline.” However, it is clear that discipline is being demanded only from those at the bottom of the social ladder, who will pay for the amassing of even greater personal fortunes by those at the top.
The tax package that is currently under consideration is centered on the extension of capital gains and dividend tax cuts, over half of which would go to the top 0.2 percent who have incomes in excess of $1 million a year. Over three-quarters of the tax cuts benefit only households making more than $100,000 a year—just 14 percent of the population. According to some estimates, the real cost of this give-away to the super-rich and the most privileged sections of the upper-middle-class will be closer to $100 billion in lost federal revenues over the next five years.
The biggest spending cuts enacted by Congress include $6.4 billion slashed from Medicare, the health program for the elderly, and $4.8 billion from Medicaid, which provides health coverage for the poor and disabled.
The legislation marks a fundamental shift in federal policy, allowing state governments to impose premiums and co-payments on Medicaid benefits and further limit eligibility. Its approval came just days after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report pointing to the barbaric consequences the budget-cutting measures will have for millions of Americans.
According to the CBO report, over the next decade the changes in Medicaid will increase costs on prescription drugs for some 20 million low-income recipients and force at least 65,000 out of the program altogether—60 percent of them children. The report estimated that the greatest savings from the legislation will come from higher co-payments and premiums, causing people to drop out of the program or not seek needed medical care because they will be unable to afford it.
“In response to the new premiums,” the report warned, “some beneficiaries would not apply for Medicaid, would leave the program or would become ineligible due to nonpayment.” It added, “About 80 percent of the savings from higher cost-sharing would be due to decreased use of service.”
The areas expected to be targeted with new premiums include mental health services, intensifying a national crisis that already sends three times as many mentally ill people in the US to prisons than to mental health facilities.
Additional savings will result from repealing federal standards and allowing states to deny Medicaid benefits for such things as wheelchairs, crutches, canes, eyeglasses and hearing aids.
The savings in the Medicare program for the elderly come from a series of changes including increased premiums, cuts in funding to hospitals and a freeze on funding for home health agencies. Another punitive provision aimed at elderly nursing home residents would deny them Medicaid benefits if they had given away money over the previous five years. This would include money donated to charity or contributed to the college tuition of a grandchild.
While slashing benefits for the poor and elderly, the legislation was carefully crafted to protect the interests of the managed health care industry and the major drug companies. Provisions in the Senate version of the bill that would have required the big pharmaceutical firms to give larger rebates on drugs bought by states under Medicaid and cut overpayments to HMOs covering Medicare beneficiaries—which alone would have saved an estimated $22 billion over 10 years—were stripped from the legislation. Some in Congress charged that the final language of the bill was directly dictated by lobbyists for HMOs and drug companies, which are among the largest campaign contributors to both major parties.
Another socially regressive provision will sharply increase interest rates on college loans to students and their parents. The interest rate on PLUS loans to parents will rise from the current 6.1 percent to 8.5 percent next July, while the rate on federal Stafford Loans used by some 10 million students will climb from 5.3 percent to 6.8 percent.
This change amounts to a cut in financial aid that will ultimately deprive a section of working class youth of the right to a higher education. It is projected to generate as much as $14 billion in revenue over five years, money that will be used to defray the cost of tax cuts for the rich.
The legislation also includes stiffer work requirements for some 2 million adult Americans on welfare. The burden, which will require most recipients to spend 40 hours a week either working or in job training, will fall most heavily on single mothers. At the same time, the bill includes only $1 billion in new funding for childcare—$11 billion less than what is needed to allow parents to manage the extended work requirement, according to an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office.
This measure deepens the attacks initiated under the so-called welfare reform introduced by the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton in 1996.
The 216-214 vote on the final legislation split largely on party lines, with 13 Republicans joining the Democratic minority in opposing the bill. Its passage underscored once again the inability of the Democratic Party to offer any alternative to the reactionary social agenda of the Bush administration.
The Deficit Reduction Act is a holdover from last year. The administration is already preparing to introduce even deeper cuts in social programs and further increases in military spending in a fiscal 2007 budget that it will present to Congress next week. Declaring his support for the bill passed by Congress, Bush vowed he would “continue to build on the spending restraint we have achieved.”
The 2007 budget will continue the sharp and protracted growth in US military spending. The proposed Pentagon budget for the next fiscal year will rise to $439.3 billion, a 4.8 percent increase over last year. This includes $84.2 billion to be allocated for new weapons, an 8 percent rise in such purchases over fiscal 2006. This budget is over and above the supplemental funding requests for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and does not include more than $6 billion spent each year to maintain the US nuclear arsenal.
By Bill Van Auken
3 February 2006
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
In the wake of George W. Bush’s State of the Union address, the White House and the Republican-led Congress have moved swiftly to implement a series of budget measures that will slash funding for health care and education while allocating vast new sums for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and tax cuts for America’s wealthy elite.
The House of Representatives approved a $39.5 billion five-year budget-cutting package on Wednesday. More than half of the savings has been carved out of funding for Medicare and Medicaid, the principal programs that provide minimal health care coverage to the elderly, poor and disabled.
On Thursday, Congressional sources reported that the White House was preparing to ask Congress for another $70 billion to pay for the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This comes on top of $50 billion approved just last December, and brings the total allocated for these military interventions in little over four years to more than $420 billion, the vast majority of it spent on the aggression against Iraq.
Before the year is out, the administration will seek yet another supplemental appropriation to pay for the military operations in the two countries. It is anticipated that before the end 2006, the cost of these wars will top the $500 billion mark—ten times the amount estimated by the administration prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Meanwhile, the Senate continued debate on a $56 billion tax cut that has already been passed by the House.
Taken as a whole, these legislative initiatives will deepen the social misery in America while widening the already enormous gulf separating a tiny financial oligarchy from the masses of working people. They further underscore American capitalism’s growing dependence upon militarism to offset the decline in its economic position in the world arena.
The House bill is misnamed the Deficit Reduction Act. In fact, it will do next to nothing to reduce the US budget deficit, which is expected to rise to $360 billion this year. While draconian in their impact on those who depend on the programs being slashed, the budget cuts hardly make a dent in this deficit and account for less than 3 percent of the $14.3 trillion in federal spending projected over the next five years.
The House leadership and the Bush White House praised the budget package for taking what one Republican congressman termed a “first step toward long-term fiscal discipline.” However, it is clear that discipline is being demanded only from those at the bottom of the social ladder, who will pay for the amassing of even greater personal fortunes by those at the top.
The tax package that is currently under consideration is centered on the extension of capital gains and dividend tax cuts, over half of which would go to the top 0.2 percent who have incomes in excess of $1 million a year. Over three-quarters of the tax cuts benefit only households making more than $100,000 a year—just 14 percent of the population. According to some estimates, the real cost of this give-away to the super-rich and the most privileged sections of the upper-middle-class will be closer to $100 billion in lost federal revenues over the next five years.
The biggest spending cuts enacted by Congress include $6.4 billion slashed from Medicare, the health program for the elderly, and $4.8 billion from Medicaid, which provides health coverage for the poor and disabled.
The legislation marks a fundamental shift in federal policy, allowing state governments to impose premiums and co-payments on Medicaid benefits and further limit eligibility. Its approval came just days after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report pointing to the barbaric consequences the budget-cutting measures will have for millions of Americans.
According to the CBO report, over the next decade the changes in Medicaid will increase costs on prescription drugs for some 20 million low-income recipients and force at least 65,000 out of the program altogether—60 percent of them children. The report estimated that the greatest savings from the legislation will come from higher co-payments and premiums, causing people to drop out of the program or not seek needed medical care because they will be unable to afford it.
“In response to the new premiums,” the report warned, “some beneficiaries would not apply for Medicaid, would leave the program or would become ineligible due to nonpayment.” It added, “About 80 percent of the savings from higher cost-sharing would be due to decreased use of service.”
The areas expected to be targeted with new premiums include mental health services, intensifying a national crisis that already sends three times as many mentally ill people in the US to prisons than to mental health facilities.
Additional savings will result from repealing federal standards and allowing states to deny Medicaid benefits for such things as wheelchairs, crutches, canes, eyeglasses and hearing aids.
The savings in the Medicare program for the elderly come from a series of changes including increased premiums, cuts in funding to hospitals and a freeze on funding for home health agencies. Another punitive provision aimed at elderly nursing home residents would deny them Medicaid benefits if they had given away money over the previous five years. This would include money donated to charity or contributed to the college tuition of a grandchild.
While slashing benefits for the poor and elderly, the legislation was carefully crafted to protect the interests of the managed health care industry and the major drug companies. Provisions in the Senate version of the bill that would have required the big pharmaceutical firms to give larger rebates on drugs bought by states under Medicaid and cut overpayments to HMOs covering Medicare beneficiaries—which alone would have saved an estimated $22 billion over 10 years—were stripped from the legislation. Some in Congress charged that the final language of the bill was directly dictated by lobbyists for HMOs and drug companies, which are among the largest campaign contributors to both major parties.
Another socially regressive provision will sharply increase interest rates on college loans to students and their parents. The interest rate on PLUS loans to parents will rise from the current 6.1 percent to 8.5 percent next July, while the rate on federal Stafford Loans used by some 10 million students will climb from 5.3 percent to 6.8 percent.
This change amounts to a cut in financial aid that will ultimately deprive a section of working class youth of the right to a higher education. It is projected to generate as much as $14 billion in revenue over five years, money that will be used to defray the cost of tax cuts for the rich.
The legislation also includes stiffer work requirements for some 2 million adult Americans on welfare. The burden, which will require most recipients to spend 40 hours a week either working or in job training, will fall most heavily on single mothers. At the same time, the bill includes only $1 billion in new funding for childcare—$11 billion less than what is needed to allow parents to manage the extended work requirement, according to an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office.
This measure deepens the attacks initiated under the so-called welfare reform introduced by the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton in 1996.
The 216-214 vote on the final legislation split largely on party lines, with 13 Republicans joining the Democratic minority in opposing the bill. Its passage underscored once again the inability of the Democratic Party to offer any alternative to the reactionary social agenda of the Bush administration.
The Deficit Reduction Act is a holdover from last year. The administration is already preparing to introduce even deeper cuts in social programs and further increases in military spending in a fiscal 2007 budget that it will present to Congress next week. Declaring his support for the bill passed by Congress, Bush vowed he would “continue to build on the spending restraint we have achieved.”
The 2007 budget will continue the sharp and protracted growth in US military spending. The proposed Pentagon budget for the next fiscal year will rise to $439.3 billion, a 4.8 percent increase over last year. This includes $84.2 billion to be allocated for new weapons, an 8 percent rise in such purchases over fiscal 2006. This budget is over and above the supplemental funding requests for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and does not include more than $6 billion spent each year to maintain the US nuclear arsenal.
I don't know why people always complain about the decisions our government makes. Could you do a better job? Seriously think about it. If they put you in any important position you would be lost. Your suggestions would be ridiculed, and you would be lucky if someone at the job would take the time to explain why your futile suggestions wouldn't work. Bush didn't devise anything, he just signed the document.
If you want to make a difference, go get a PHD in Macro Economics and then make an attempt to get into the think tank. If not, then be a good little citizen and pay your taxes.
Leave the budget to the people who know what they are doing. I bet most of the people here have trouble managing their personal checking account, but they know whats good for the government?
Right....
If you want to make a difference, go get a PHD in Macro Economics and then make an attempt to get into the think tank. If not, then be a good little citizen and pay your taxes.
Leave the budget to the people who know what they are doing. I bet most of the people here have trouble managing their personal checking account, but they know whats good for the government?
Right....
Maybe you should do some reading....maybe u didnt understand the part about cutting education funds....people are complaining because the moves the government makes is NOT in the best intrest of the ppl. and the government does whatever the fuck it wants...regaurdless of what you think, know, or do.
Considering how hard it would be....its highly likley.
thinking...
Really? hm you must know alot about the ppl on these boards by just reading screen names...how do u do that? thats cool....oh ya, nice assumption, but you sir, are lost.
My decisions would automatically be ridiculed huh? even though u dont know what my decisions would be? hm.....intresting shit. somone at what job? explain yourself..again NOW, my suggestions are futile without being known....intresting. you sound like a brainwashed fucking robot that 100% trusts the gov. to be un-corrupt, just, and fair. you are 1 of the sheep. congrats.
Are you sure? How are you sure? u really need to research some shit. get educated.
basically, you're saying, if u dont get a PHD in macro economics, you should be a good little sheep, stay with the crowd, keep your mouth shut and pay up.....nice logic.
Yeah cuz apparently they know what they are doing....the country is in DEBT up to they're fucking eyeballs, fuck that they are SUBMERGED in debt 50 feet fucking deep. Now they are cutting education funds and health care funds along with many other cuts....And you are suggesting we sit back and let them do whatever they wish because they are in a position of power? HAHA you are fucking comedy bro. YOU ARE A PRODUCT OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. Congradulations.
first of all your checking account statement is an assumption that is irrelevant. Second, people being your average working class person with any kind of open mind that is half way educated can see what is good for the people...and thats what the government is suppose to do. for the people by the people. remember? check yourself.
Wrong.
Considering how hard it would be....its highly likley.
thinking...
Really? hm you must know alot about the ppl on these boards by just reading screen names...how do u do that? thats cool....oh ya, nice assumption, but you sir, are lost.
My decisions would automatically be ridiculed huh? even though u dont know what my decisions would be? hm.....intresting shit. somone at what job? explain yourself..again NOW, my suggestions are futile without being known....intresting. you sound like a brainwashed fucking robot that 100% trusts the gov. to be un-corrupt, just, and fair. you are 1 of the sheep. congrats.
Are you sure? How are you sure? u really need to research some shit. get educated.
basically, you're saying, if u dont get a PHD in macro economics, you should be a good little sheep, stay with the crowd, keep your mouth shut and pay up.....nice logic.
Yeah cuz apparently they know what they are doing....the country is in DEBT up to they're fucking eyeballs, fuck that they are SUBMERGED in debt 50 feet fucking deep. Now they are cutting education funds and health care funds along with many other cuts....And you are suggesting we sit back and let them do whatever they wish because they are in a position of power? HAHA you are fucking comedy bro. YOU ARE A PRODUCT OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. Congradulations.
first of all your checking account statement is an assumption that is irrelevant. Second, people being your average working class person with any kind of open mind that is half way educated can see what is good for the people...and thats what the government is suppose to do. for the people by the people. remember? check yourself.
Wrong.
Tax shelters are a *huge* industry, especially when you get into real wealth and asset management. The way the industry is structured, they appear on the outside to be bad investments, but in fact people make real money in them. Certain oil and exploration forays can be considered tax shelters.
Placing earned money in real estate allows you to avoid capital gains taxes, and as long as you spend more than you are making (which is quite easy to do: imagine buying multiple houses and writing that against the rent you are making), you can accumulate some real estate wealth tax-free, while the rest is often taxed at capital gains rates (15%-18%) as opposed to income tax rates for people who make that much money (25-38%).
When rich people say they are taxed around 50%, they are bullshitting. Accountants make money based on how much they save you, and the richest people have some of the best accountants.
Placing earned money in real estate allows you to avoid capital gains taxes, and as long as you spend more than you are making (which is quite easy to do: imagine buying multiple houses and writing that against the rent you are making), you can accumulate some real estate wealth tax-free, while the rest is often taxed at capital gains rates (15%-18%) as opposed to income tax rates for people who make that much money (25-38%).
When rich people say they are taxed around 50%, they are bullshitting. Accountants make money based on how much they save you, and the richest people have some of the best accountants.
@CSmoke
The governments actions are not in the best interest of the people?
Maybe not this generations, but the ones to come.
Think long term.
Yes, I am a product of the American government as we all are. As long as you have a SS# and pay your taxes, you are a product.
You missed what I was saying apparently.
Let's use you for example since you decided to speak upon it.
You are just some weed smoker from San Diego (let's be honest here). Now, with that being said you wouldn't be allowed in basic training to the Army, nor even be allowed to be a postman. Yet all of a sudden you think you have something intelligent to say about our national budget and deficit?
Do you HONESTLY think that YOU know what to do and have come up with a plan that our government hasn't thought of?
The governments actions are not in the best interest of the people?
Maybe not this generations, but the ones to come.
Think long term.
Yes, I am a product of the American government as we all are. As long as you have a SS# and pay your taxes, you are a product.
You missed what I was saying apparently.
Let's use you for example since you decided to speak upon it.
You are just some weed smoker from San Diego (let's be honest here). Now, with that being said you wouldn't be allowed in basic training to the Army, nor even be allowed to be a postman. Yet all of a sudden you think you have something intelligent to say about our national budget and deficit?
Do you HONESTLY think that YOU know what to do and have come up with a plan that our government hasn't thought of?
Now this one is hilarious.
I have 6 years of post graduate schooling, own one corp and am a majority shareholder in another. I have 3 office locations in southern California. I take care of a family of 4 and probably have more steady income than your parents. Yet you are telling me to get educated?
I work with government contracts all the time and have security clearance to every court house in California.
My point is that I have no business criticizing and thinking I know what is the best decision for our governmet to make. I work with government employees all the time, people that have more education than you can even phathom in economics. Yet, the CSmoke, or someone in this siccness forum does? Wow, well then someone get the Washington think tank to read this message board so we can shed some light for them and clear up this countries problem because they know EXACTLY what they are talking about
I have 6 years of post graduate schooling, own one corp and am a majority shareholder in another. I have 3 office locations in southern California. I take care of a family of 4 and probably have more steady income than your parents. Yet you are telling me to get educated?
I work with government contracts all the time and have security clearance to every court house in California.
My point is that I have no business criticizing and thinking I know what is the best decision for our governmet to make. I work with government employees all the time, people that have more education than you can even phathom in economics. Yet, the CSmoke, or someone in this siccness forum does? Wow, well then someone get the Washington think tank to read this message board so we can shed some light for them and clear up this countries problem because they know EXACTLY what they are talking about
so because im not a postman (mailman), or in the army i am automatically not able to have an intelligent conversation on the national deficit or budget? fool, do you understand how stupid that sounds? WOW I SMOKE WEED....got a fuckin prob with that? then u got a fuckin prob with alotta ppl bro...has nothin to do with the topic at hand so shut your shit. step back. read what you typed. does that make sense? ill answer it for you cuz im sure u wont get it. NO.
No, I have no problem with you smoking weed, or anyone using any type of drug.
I was talking about the government not allowing you to even get a bottom tier placement (ie-post office), thus having any business with any decision makers is far out of reach. Which leads to my next point.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
You stated:
as far as the post after you idiotic one.....
this is a conversation board, meant to spark topics and conversations of different viewpoints from everyone...if you dont like it you can simply see you're way out....cuz thats what this forum is about, gatehring of the minds...think about it.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, I agree.
I just have a problem with my outlook on things. The way I see things (not just politics, but anything of any topic) is that if you don't have any influence on it nor are in any real position to do better than the ones doing it, then you (not you personally) are in no position to criticize it.
For example. on this one.
Let's keep it simple here. Do you have the answer?
Yes or no.
If yes, then write a letter to congress. Start going for government positions and work your way up to Senate so your voice will be heard.
If no, then why act like it?
I was talking about the government not allowing you to even get a bottom tier placement (ie-post office), thus having any business with any decision makers is far out of reach. Which leads to my next point.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
You stated:
as far as the post after you idiotic one.....
this is a conversation board, meant to spark topics and conversations of different viewpoints from everyone...if you dont like it you can simply see you're way out....cuz thats what this forum is about, gatehring of the minds...think about it.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes, I agree.
I just have a problem with my outlook on things. The way I see things (not just politics, but anything of any topic) is that if you don't have any influence on it nor are in any real position to do better than the ones doing it, then you (not you personally) are in no position to criticize it.
For example. on this one.
Let's keep it simple here. Do you have the answer?
Yes or no.
If yes, then write a letter to congress. Start going for government positions and work your way up to Senate so your voice will be heard.
If no, then why act like it?
Pretty much.
I just don't understand the concept of speaking on it, if what you say has absolutely no influence it.
Now, discussing the topic is another thing. Trying to better educate oneself and talk amongst eachother is great. Acting like you (once again, not you personally) have the answer (cut taxes, increase this, cut that, etc.) is what gets to me.
I just don't understand the concept of speaking on it, if what you say has absolutely no influence it.
Now, discussing the topic is another thing. Trying to better educate oneself and talk amongst eachother is great. Acting like you (once again, not you personally) have the answer (cut taxes, increase this, cut that, etc.) is what gets to me.
NYTIMES
February 5, 2006
Budget Reflects Competition for Money
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 — President Bush wants to spend more on bird flu and the physical sciences next year, but would freeze the budget of the National Institutes of Health and would slightly cut federal support for research on cancer and heart disease, two of the leading killers of Americans, budget documents show.
The president's budget, to be unveiled on Monday, shows the hard choices facing Congress and the nation as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security take up a growing share of the federal dollar.
Mr. Bush is requesting a second installment of money to protect the nation against the threat of pandemic influenza: $2.65 billion in 2007, on top of the $3.3 billion that Congress provided for this year.
Budget documents from the Department of Health and Human Services say Mr. Bush would use the new money to buy flu vaccine for every person in the United States and to provide antiviral drugs to one-fourth of the population in an emergency. Health officials see the disease, first reported in Asia, as a serious threat. The World Health Organization says that 161 people have been infected and that 86 of them have died.
Mr. Bush's budget follows up a commitment in his State of the Union address to double spending on basic research in the physical sciences over 10 years as a way to "keep America competitive."
The president will request $6 billion for the National Science Foundation in 2007, an increase of 7.8 percent over this year's level, and is seeking $4.1 billion for the science office at the Energy Department, an increase of 14 percent, according to budget documents.
The science foundation, an engine of high-tech innovation, supports the work of many mathematicians, physicists, chemists, engineers, computer scientists and biologists.
Patrick White, director of federal relations for the Association of American Universities, which represents 60 large research universities, said, "We are very pleased to see what the Bush administration is doing for the physical sciences."
Congress doubled the budget of the National Institutes of Health over five years, from 1998 to 2003, and Mr. Bush often takes credit for completing that increase. But Mr. White said the administration "now seems to be neglecting the N.I.H."
Under the president's budget for 2007, the institutes would get $28.6 billion, the same as this year. Mr. Bush proposes small cuts for 18 of the 19 institutes — all but the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is leading research on bird flu and biological terrorism.
In his 2007 budget, Mr. Bush is seeking $4.75 billion for the National Cancer Institute, which is $40 million less than its current budget and $71 million less than it got in 2005. He is requesting $2.9 billion for the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, which is $21 million less than the current budget and $40 million less than in 2005.
The budget says, "Chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes are the leading causes of death and disability in the United States, accounting for 70 percent of all deaths."
But the president's budget would cut spending for programs that seek to prevent chronic disease and promote healthy behaviors. Congress provided $900 million for those programs in 2005. Mr. Bush requested $840 million for 2006; Congress provided $839 million. Mr. Bush is now requesting $819 million for 2007.
Kim A. Elliott, deputy director of the Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit advocacy group, praised the president's commitment to bird flu preparations. "The president and his political appointees listened to the professional judgment of scientists and medical and public health experts," Ms. Elliott said.
But in response to a question about the budget, she said, "We are not spending enough on efforts to prevent chronic diseases and to find cures."
Mr. Bush is requesting $8.2 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2007, which is $179 million below this year's level.
Under the president's budget, the centers would spend $824 million to help state and local health departments prepare for a terrorist attack or an outbreak of infectious disease. That is the same amount provided this year and 10 percent less than in 2005.
Over all, the president's budget for 2007 is expected to total $2.7 trillion. In his first term, federal spending rose 33 percent — in part because of the Iraq war and domestic security costs — while federal revenues grew 8 percent. Revenues declined from 2000 to 2003, but surged last year, as the government collected more individual and corporate income taxes and payroll taxes in a growing economy.
Administration officials, Congressional aides and lobbyists offered this preview of likely budget proposals at other agencies:
¶Mr. Bush is expected to request $16.8 billion for the space agency, an increase of 1 percent. Cost overruns on the shuttle have squeezed the money available for other space programs.
¶In place of various federal job programs, Mr. Bush will ask Congress to establish "career advancement accounts." The White House said that 800,000 people a year — workers and people looking for work — could use these accounts to pay for training or tuition costs if they went back to school to gain new skills.
¶For the fourth year in a row, Mr. Bush will ask Congress to require some veterans to pay more for medical care. Middle-income veterans with no service-connected disability would face higher co-payments for prescription drugs and a new fee for the privilege of using government health care.
"These people are already paying substantial annual deductibles and fees and co-payments for medical services and prescription drugs," said Richard B. Fuller, legislative director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America. "The new charges would force some veterans out of the V.A. system because they can't pay or choose not to pay the new costs."
At the Department of Health and Human Services, officials have sought savings in many popular programs. Budget documents show that the administration wants to cut spending for the Office of Minority Health and the training of health care professionals.
Moreover, the documents say, Mr. Bush will propose eliminating programs to treat people with traumatic brain injuries and to improve emergency medical services for children.
The administration said it had found no evidence that these programs improved "the health or well-being" of the intended beneficiaries.
February 5, 2006
Budget Reflects Competition for Money
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 — President Bush wants to spend more on bird flu and the physical sciences next year, but would freeze the budget of the National Institutes of Health and would slightly cut federal support for research on cancer and heart disease, two of the leading killers of Americans, budget documents show.
The president's budget, to be unveiled on Monday, shows the hard choices facing Congress and the nation as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue and Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security take up a growing share of the federal dollar.
Mr. Bush is requesting a second installment of money to protect the nation against the threat of pandemic influenza: $2.65 billion in 2007, on top of the $3.3 billion that Congress provided for this year.
Budget documents from the Department of Health and Human Services say Mr. Bush would use the new money to buy flu vaccine for every person in the United States and to provide antiviral drugs to one-fourth of the population in an emergency. Health officials see the disease, first reported in Asia, as a serious threat. The World Health Organization says that 161 people have been infected and that 86 of them have died.
Mr. Bush's budget follows up a commitment in his State of the Union address to double spending on basic research in the physical sciences over 10 years as a way to "keep America competitive."
The president will request $6 billion for the National Science Foundation in 2007, an increase of 7.8 percent over this year's level, and is seeking $4.1 billion for the science office at the Energy Department, an increase of 14 percent, according to budget documents.
The science foundation, an engine of high-tech innovation, supports the work of many mathematicians, physicists, chemists, engineers, computer scientists and biologists.
Patrick White, director of federal relations for the Association of American Universities, which represents 60 large research universities, said, "We are very pleased to see what the Bush administration is doing for the physical sciences."
Congress doubled the budget of the National Institutes of Health over five years, from 1998 to 2003, and Mr. Bush often takes credit for completing that increase. But Mr. White said the administration "now seems to be neglecting the N.I.H."
Under the president's budget for 2007, the institutes would get $28.6 billion, the same as this year. Mr. Bush proposes small cuts for 18 of the 19 institutes — all but the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which is leading research on bird flu and biological terrorism.
In his 2007 budget, Mr. Bush is seeking $4.75 billion for the National Cancer Institute, which is $40 million less than its current budget and $71 million less than it got in 2005. He is requesting $2.9 billion for the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, which is $21 million less than the current budget and $40 million less than in 2005.
The budget says, "Chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes are the leading causes of death and disability in the United States, accounting for 70 percent of all deaths."
But the president's budget would cut spending for programs that seek to prevent chronic disease and promote healthy behaviors. Congress provided $900 million for those programs in 2005. Mr. Bush requested $840 million for 2006; Congress provided $839 million. Mr. Bush is now requesting $819 million for 2007.
Kim A. Elliott, deputy director of the Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit advocacy group, praised the president's commitment to bird flu preparations. "The president and his political appointees listened to the professional judgment of scientists and medical and public health experts," Ms. Elliott said.
But in response to a question about the budget, she said, "We are not spending enough on efforts to prevent chronic diseases and to find cures."
Mr. Bush is requesting $8.2 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2007, which is $179 million below this year's level.
Under the president's budget, the centers would spend $824 million to help state and local health departments prepare for a terrorist attack or an outbreak of infectious disease. That is the same amount provided this year and 10 percent less than in 2005.
Over all, the president's budget for 2007 is expected to total $2.7 trillion. In his first term, federal spending rose 33 percent — in part because of the Iraq war and domestic security costs — while federal revenues grew 8 percent. Revenues declined from 2000 to 2003, but surged last year, as the government collected more individual and corporate income taxes and payroll taxes in a growing economy.
Administration officials, Congressional aides and lobbyists offered this preview of likely budget proposals at other agencies:
¶Mr. Bush is expected to request $16.8 billion for the space agency, an increase of 1 percent. Cost overruns on the shuttle have squeezed the money available for other space programs.
¶In place of various federal job programs, Mr. Bush will ask Congress to establish "career advancement accounts." The White House said that 800,000 people a year — workers and people looking for work — could use these accounts to pay for training or tuition costs if they went back to school to gain new skills.
¶For the fourth year in a row, Mr. Bush will ask Congress to require some veterans to pay more for medical care. Middle-income veterans with no service-connected disability would face higher co-payments for prescription drugs and a new fee for the privilege of using government health care.
"These people are already paying substantial annual deductibles and fees and co-payments for medical services and prescription drugs," said Richard B. Fuller, legislative director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America. "The new charges would force some veterans out of the V.A. system because they can't pay or choose not to pay the new costs."
At the Department of Health and Human Services, officials have sought savings in many popular programs. Budget documents show that the administration wants to cut spending for the Office of Minority Health and the training of health care professionals.
Moreover, the documents say, Mr. Bush will propose eliminating programs to treat people with traumatic brain injuries and to improve emergency medical services for children.
The administration said it had found no evidence that these programs improved "the health or well-being" of the intended beneficiaries.