Still thinks he influences the legislative process.
When he takes the House rostrum next week for the State of the Union address, President Bush will list among his goals a balanced federal budget, a shift for a president who has presided over record deficits while aggressively cutting taxes.
Politically, analysts say, the president is calling the bluff of Democrats, who won control of Congress in part by accusing Bush of reckless fiscal policies. While Bush now shares the Democrats’ goal to erase the deficit by 2012, the politically perilous work of making that happen — cutting spending or raising taxes — falls to the Democratic-run Congress.
“The Democrats have assailed deficits under President Bush. The White House is telling Democrats to walk the walk,” said Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Budget experts and economists from across the political spectrum, including some who worked in the Bush White House, say that Bush is unlikely to offer real concessions toward a balanced budget in the plan he delivers to Congress next month.
My advice, ignore him. Every policy the president touches turns into a disaster. He’s slightly more popular than herpes. His own Congressional caucus is scared spitless (their words) of being too close to him. If Bush wants to veto bill after bill that would bring the federal house in order then so be it, his party can pay the price for failing to override.
In a larger sense it is almost nauseating how our “deficits don’t matter” administration suddenly turns 180 degrees around when Democrats take Congress. Out of nowhere earmarks became an enemy of good government. That’s right, earmarks. Right at the moment when the other party controls of the earmark process. Amazing! Finding the right perspective on the budget after six years of being wrong hardly masks the sheer partisan cravenness of the White House’s conversion.
ThymeZone
It all makes sense, when you flip it over and look at it differently.
Washington, DC is not about governing or what’s good for the country. It’s about power, and games played by powerful people.
And it’s about lobbies and money.
Once you have that part down, the rest of this madness starts to make perfect sense.
Pb
Heh! Works for me. Step one towards balancing the budget: cut off funds for Iraq and withdraw the troops. You’re welcome, Mr. President.
Jake
Fixed.
Back OT, I wonder if this goal will go the way of the “do something about global warming (besides ignore it)” goal. Or will it be a goal accompanied by some half-arsed plan that involves screwing everyone who earns under $500K a year? Again.
I suspect the new war cry will be “We have to balance the budget!” As in: We can’t raise the minimum wage, we have to balance the budget! We can’t afford that health care program, we have to balance the budget! Squaaaawk! Screw you!
Punchy
Question–is this wildly unbalanced budget even factoring in the gazillions spent in Iraq? If not…aren’t we really an additional ~$400 BILL in the rouge?
I was undy the impression that the Iraq expenditures weren’t even counted in the budget deficeit. Paging a finance major….
Not Bob Jones
I don’t get it at all. We had sufficient revenues prior to this administration taking office that we no longer were running crazy budget deficits. Wouldn’t it be easy just to repeal all of the reckless tax cuts in order to give us the same pre-2001 revenues??
Or would the democrats pay a price for putting taxes back to that level?
scarshapedstar
In other news, the National Meteorological Service has announced that the sky will remain blue for the foreseeable future.
ConservativelyLiberal
TimF Says:
There, I knew that sooner or later something would stick…
I am not into taxing people into the dark ages, but borrowing to go to war just seems wrong. The same for tax cuts while at war. I have mixed feelings about taxes, but I know that the government needs to pass the collection hat somehow.
The fact that China has been financing our war is mind boggling. Go back 50 years and tell the American public that China (or Russia) would be financing us. You would have the Capitol in flames and surrounded by mobs of angry citizens.
In the meanwhile rich corporations and their leaders are filling their pockets with cash and the public is shouldering more or the burden.
To each, according to their means. Nope, too radical of an idea for Repubs. Gotta have the ol’ flat (world) tax or no tax people.
People, when the rich and powerful say that they are for something, be it war, a tax plan or whatever, that should be the first sign that the vast majority of the public are about to be screwed over royally.
Clench yer butt-cheeks…
Pb
Punchy,
Who knows–I’ve stopped listening to the phony White House numbers, when I want to know how much we’re really in the hole, I just calculate it back from how much we’re in debt–which is about $570 billion a year +/- $25 billion for the past four years (yeah, that’s right–over two trillion in new debt over the past four years–I’m sure it’s a record).
SeesThroughIt
“We’re far too cowardly and inept to clean up our own mess. Besides, if we try to clean it up, how are we supposed to give sops to the rich?”
BTW: I would assume that the WHite House’s budget numbers do not take Iraq funding into account; they never have to this point, so why would they start now?
grumpy realist
Heck, we should just call the bluff of all of those “let’s return to the 1950s Wonderful Times” people and return to those tax rates as well.
Upper bracket of 90% taxation? Hey, if the 1950s were so great, let’s get back there financially as well.
The Other Steve
To Republicans, responsibility means holding others responsible for your fuckups.
BTW, Senator Webb will be giving the response.
TenguPhule
Yes, they would.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
semper fubar
I dunno – I’d rather have herpes than Bush. Herpes can be dormant for long long periods of time, and even when it flares up, it’s a fairly minor and temporary (and if you’re lucky, not too noticeable) inconvenience. Bush on the other hand…..