George Bush and his party are not fiscal conservatives. Can we stop claiming they even want to be?
President Bush sent Congress a $3.1 trillion budget on Monday that would increase military spending and curb the growth of Medicare and Medicaid but raise the federal deficit by nearly $250 billion, a major setback for a president who is trying to restore his credentials as a fiscal conservative. [From Bush Presents Budget That Would Increase Deficit]
This massive budget doesn't even factor in the cost for the Iraq War, although the Pentagon receives huge increases for other items, how's that for honesty and accountability.
Mr. Bush proposes a significant increase in spending for the Pentagon. If the Defense Department’s proposed $515.4 billion budget is approved in full, it will mean that, when adjusted for inflation, annual military spending will reach its highest level since World War II. The figure does not include spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terror and supplemental items.
From the Tribune:
Includes deficits, not cost of wars
President Bush, facing his final go-around on spending with a Democratic-run Congress during this presidential election year, on Monday unveiled a $3.1 trillion budget for 2009 that boosts defense spending and pares Medicare costs while leaving a near-record deficit.
[snip] The spending plan proposed by the White House envisions a 7.5 percent boost in defense spending, while acknowledging that the full costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not included. As it stands, the proposal represents a 70 percent increase in defense spending during Bush's two terms.
[From Bush presents $3 trillion budget]
70 percent increase, if one excludes spending on the Iraq/Afghanistan debacles.
While Bush is seeking boosts in defense and homeland security (7.7 percent), he proposed cuts at the Justice Department (10.7 percent), for agriculture (4.8 percent), at the Environmental Protection Agency (4.4 percent), and in health and human services (2.1 percent).Is it 2009 yet? Oh, and Corpus Callasum has more thoughts about the $200 billion in cuts to Medicaid/Medicare.
Putting limits on Medicare payments and moving seniors into privately run Medicare plans "target the most vulnerable," said George Kourpias, president of the Alliance for Retired Americans. "Only in Washington could this be the work of a 'compassionate conservative.'"
The White House maintained that cuts in Medicare can be painless -- even lowering premiums that seniors pay by capping what doctors and hospitals can charge -- and will help control Medicare costs that could, if unchecked, consume the entire budget in four decades.
Yet, at the same time, the White House is low-balling the costs of war in 2009, seeking just $70 billion in this budget, after already seeking nearly $200 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008.
"This is just utterly dishonest," said Norman Ornstein, a senior scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who criticized the White House for "hiding" war spending.
What is less obvious is this: many of the hospitals and clinics that provide primary care are already in rough shape, financially. Inflation alone will cause some to close entirely, if they do not at least get some increase. Energy costs, in particular, are going to be tough for hospitals to deal with.
Thus, cuts in Medicare and Medicaid will affect a lot of people, not just poor and/or elderly people. Health care will be less available in general.
Because hospitals are required to provide at least basic emergency care, the cuts will lead to an unfunded mandate. That is something that already occurs. It leads to cost shifting. Thus, health care for paying patients will become more expensive.
