Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.

The words do not have to be perfect.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

Let there be snark.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

Optimism opens the door to great things.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the GOP

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

Damn right I heard that as a threat.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

Prediction: the GOP will rethink its strategy of boycotting future committees.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

… riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

You are here: Home / Politics / Republican Stupidity / Speaking of Fiscal Conservatism

Speaking of Fiscal Conservatism

by | 23 Comments

This post is in: 

Gee- Who would have ever predicted this:

President Bush’s new budget will project that the just-enacted prescription drug program and Medicare overhaul will cost one-third more than previously estimated and will predict a deficit exceeding $500 billion for this year, congressional aides said Thursday.

Instead of a $400 billion 10-year price tag, Bush’s 2005 budget will estimate the Medicare bill’s cost at about $540 billion, said aides who spoke on condition of anonymity. Bush will submit on Monday a federal budget for the fiscal year 2005, which starts next Oct. 1.

Bush just signed the Medicare measure into law last month. While it was moving through Congress, Bush, White House officials and congressional Republican leaders had assured doubting conservatives that the bill’s costs would stay within the $400 billion estimate.

Some conservatives voted against the legislation anyway, and many of them are already angry that Bush has presided over excessive increases in spending and budget deficits.

“I’m not the least bit surprised,” said conservative Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., who voted against the Medicare bill in November and who said he had heard that the cost estimate would rise. “Historically, our estimates of what these programs will cost have been so far off as to be meaningless.”

Assholes. That really is the only comment I can come up with right now.

Reader Interactions

23Comments

  3. 3.

    caleb

    The thing is, Bush can do anything he wants.

    Bush could run up a deficit of one trillion and republicans would still vote for him over any one of the current democratic canidates for the White House.

    The only one I have seen any republican say anything positive about is Lieberman, and he ain’t look’n too good.

    The worst thing republicans will do come vote time is hold their nose.

    His base is going nowhere no matter what he does.

    I would love to be proven wrong though. ;-)

  4. 4.

    JKC

    The question is this, John: how do we fix this?

    Everyone says they hate pork, but everyone clamors for their little piece of bacon.

    I’ll throw out a suggestion: Gradually eliminate arts funding. (Disclaimer: as a child of a musician/music teacher, that one hurts personally.) Replace it with tax exemptions that allow full deductibility for money used to support the arts.

    (Other tax loopholes, like off-shore shelters, would need to be eliminated to “spice up the carrot.” Anyone else have suggestions where to start?)

  6. 6.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    ” Replace it with tax exemptions that allow full deductibility for money used to support the arts.”

    Don’t we have that already?

    Personally, I think it’s silly to spend so much time on the NEA. I can understand the PHILOSOPHY of opposing the increase (although the State has supported the arts since time immemorial!) but the AMOUNT isn’t worth discussing relative to the budget shortfall as a whole. I make the NEA increase as 0.0036% of the deficit. That’s $36 on every $100,000, right?

    Didn’t we start this thread noticing that the CBO lowballed expenses (again)? Bush is leading us to budgetary disaster!

  7. 7.

    JKC

    Andrew-

    I agree with you that the numbers are small beer. But we have to start somewhere, and the only way to avoid a fiscal disaster in this country is for EVERYONE to be willing to give up SOMETHING.

  8. 8.

    caleb

    Great,

    Is everything from here on out going to be “small beer”?

    Sheesh.

    Time for this buzz phrase to die already.

  10. 10.

    S.W. Anderson

    This is just the latest example of Bush’s bait-and-switch habit. Lowball the numbers in November, to get it passed, then, in January, “oop$.”

    If this one grabs you, wait until you see the next installment of Bush’s Magnificent Iraq Adventure. But don’t look for Bush & Co. to present the add-on to that bill until he’s (they hope) safely past the election.

  11. 11.

    Ksec

    Hes wishy washy . The clown should be in prison for war crimes, instead hes ruining the country.Nice choice right wingers..

  12. 12.

    andrew

    More gas on the fire:

    Bush Calls for more funding of Rube Goldberg Missle Defense system

    If I were a terrorist with a small nuclear device I’d use a suitcase not a missle to deliver my weapon, I don’t know about you.

  14. 14.

    Slartibartfast

    That’d be a swell argument, andrew, if it was just you we ever had to defend against.

    Not that it’s relevant, but I find it odd that a V-22 is a hundred million dollars. I already knew that F-22s were pretty dear, but a HUNDRED MILLION bucks just for a small troop-transporter?

  15. 15.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    BTW, the half-trillion dollar deficit for next FY doesn’t, of course, include supplemental appropriations. And you can make book, a $100 billion supplemental for Iraquagmire is waiting for introduction the day after the election. We’ll probably stop issuing ammo if that what it takes to stretch the available resources until then.

  16. 16.

    syn

    Does anyone notice the amount of wealth the entertainment industry, America’s leading exporter, has sucked from this country’s economy? And, gets away with not having to pay their fair share of taxes!

    When will citizens end their spending sprees on simply entertaining themselves with stupid movies, mind-dumbing television, tasteless pop music and buying all the ‘lifestyle’ products that goes with this industry instead of paying for their own health care insurance?

    Since the citizens are not very good at managing their own budgets, why so strict with the government?

    My conspiracy theory is that the entertainment industry wants to perpetuate entitlement programs so that the citizens will spend most of their earnings entertaining themselves.

  17. 17.

    dg

    Fiscal + Conservativism x Reagan + 2 Bush’s = Another $500 trillion debt.

    How is it the Dems are portrayed as tax and spend, but we hemorrhage more tax dollars under one Republican administration than ALL Democratic administrations combined?

    That IS ”fuzzy math.”

  18. 18.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    In case any of you think Bush’s budgets are anything but bullshit, Slate runs the numbers.

    Calpundit has the nicely formatted summary.

    Here’s their track record:

    • 2002 revenue estimate: $2.19 trillion.
      2002 actual revenue: $1.85 trillion
      Error: -15.5%

    • 2003 revenue estimate: $2.05 trillion.
      2003 actual revenue: $1.78 trillion
      Error: -13.2%

    • 2004 revenue estimate: $1.92 trillion.
      2004 actual revenue (latest projection): $1.8 trillion
      Error (so far): -6.3%

    • 2005 revenue estimate: $2.04 trillion.

    Not very confidence inspiring, is it? And as Gross points out, $2.04 trillion would be a 13% increase over 2004, a year-to-year increase bigger than any we’ve seen for the past 20 years.

    In other words, given their track record we can probably discount the administration’s figure by 5-10% or so, a reduction of $100-200 billion. Which means that even if we accept their spending numbers, next year’s deficit is still likely to be bigger than this year’s rather than 30% lower as they are projecting.

    The answer, I suppose, will be yet another round of tax cuts for the rich in order to boost revenues. It hasn’t worked yet and has never worked in the past, but perhaps if we all clap our hands loud enough and chant “Laffer Curve” over and over it will finally work this time. Faith-based budgeting, anyone?

    Right, the Democrats are irresponsible. (How did Slate ever leave out the 2000 campaign promise to keep the budget balanced.)

  19. 19.

    SDN

    No, Andrew, the Democrats are MORE irresponsible, and in more ways. And of course, after JFK’s tax cut, and Reagan’s, govt REVENUES went way up. The problem is that spending went up MORE. And of course, when it comes to spending, Congress proposes, and a President buying support for a necessary war disposes. It would be nice if patriotism in the Congress didn’t include huge chunks of pork and regulations, wouldn’t it?

  20. 20.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    and Reagan’s, govt REVENUES went way up

    No. It took four years for non-Soc-Sec revenues to match pre-cut levels in inflation-corrected dollars, and five years if you correct for population increase. Oh, not to mention some tax INCREASES in 1986! In the meantime we accumulated what were then record levels of debt, although they were nothing compared to the accomplishments of GW Bush AND HIS **REPUBLICAN** CONGRESS.

    Receipts from Individual Income Tax in Billions of 1967 dollars:
1980  98.91
1981 104.96 
1982 102.97
1983  96.82
1984  95.92
1985 103.82
1986 106.27

    It isn’t worth discussing this with you until you go look up the numbers, which don’t support you (copy or link). My table is from the Statistical Abstract of the United States for 1988.

    As an aside, I don’t object to increased spending on security BUT REVENUES TO PAY FOT IT MUST BE RAISED. Is that so revolutionary?

    Link to a real economist.

  21. 21.

    Slartibartfast

    “Fiscal + Conservativism x Reagan + 2 Bush’s = Another $500 trillion debt.

    …

    That IS ”fuzzy math.””

    Yes, it is. Because you’re on the high side by three orders of magnitude.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. FISCALLY LIBERAL / SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE

    Has there ever been another free-wheeling President like this? I mean, seriously? 20 million for the National Endowment for the Arts? Listen. I’m not an artist basher. I married one (who probably vehemently disagrees with me on funding the arts.)…