Feb. 8th, 2005

windelina: (Firefly)
On Monday, President Bush sent Congress the most austere federal budget in perhaps 30 years, a plan that would slash aid to cities by one-third, eliminate health insurance for thousands of low-income families, reduce veterans' medical benefits, cut funding for city cops and county sheriffs, wipe out child care subsidies for 300,000 families, trim funding for clean water and soil conservation and shutter dozens of programs for preschool children and at-risk youth.

These are not the priorities that Americans voted for in 2000 and 2004.

The president justifies this extraordinary penury by insisting that he has to tame the federal budget deficit, which has grown steadily since he took office and this year will reach a record $427 billion. Fair enough: The deficit is placing a drag on the economy, undermining the dollar in world currency markets and bequeathing a terrible debt load to the next generation of American taxpayers.

What Bush wants to ignore, however, is that it's his own policies that have largely created today's red ink. No longer can he blame the recession; that ended three years ago. He can't blame the struggle against terrorism; those costs aren't even included in his budget proposal. No, to paraphrase an articulate governor we know, Washington doesn't have a spending problem, it has a revenue problem. Federal outlays this year will be lower, as a share of the economy, than they were 10 years ago. But after Bush championed four tax cuts in four years, federal revenues have fallen to the lowest share of gross domestic product since 1959.

Astonishingly, the president seems to think that revenues should go even lower. His budget includes a raft of new tax cuts and a plan to make the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. Bush insists that he wants to cut the federal deficit in half over the next five years yet documents from his own budget office show that his budget, with its tax cuts, would actually drive the federal deficit higher than it otherwise would be.

Quite apart from its miserly priorities, the budget sets a new standard for deceptive accounting. The White House said last month that it will ask Congress for another $80 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet that money is not included in yesterday's proposal. Does Bush plan to pay the troops with Monopoly money? Nor does it include the cost of the president's plan for private accounts in Social Security, which the White House now admits will cost at least $700 billion in the next decade and more in years after that. Include those amounts, and government borrowing over the next decade will soar to staggering levels.

The president seems to think he can run a 21st-century nation on a Mamie Eisenhower budget, taking Americans back to a time before Medicare, the Interstate Highway System, the Environmental Protection Agency and other great strides of the last half-century. That might be fine for the 1 percent who can care for themselves with the Bush administration's tax cuts, but it is a ruinous direction for everyone else.


I just want to know what exactly the Bush-supporters are thinking by supporting this kind of debt? And this kind of hokey accounting.

It's like Pawlenty and his lying-ass "no tax hike" budget "balancing". Problems get deferred, not solved. And while my income tax hasn't been raised, my property tax is going up, government fees are getting hiked, and services are getting cut.

And before anybody says anything about "well, all politicians like hokey accounting and all politicians lie" - yes, that is certainly true.
Except for the part where we had a budget surplus when Bush took office and in 4 years he's turned it into a record deficit and wants to cut the government's income even more. I'm not going to argue how that surplus came to be. But I am going to argue that boy, that surplus would've come in handy to help the country after 9/11, or help pay for this stupid-ass war (stupid-ass in how it is being waged, not our poor military personnel who are being screwed by our government). Now, Bush couldn't have known about those costs when he started cutting taxes. But it's now 2005, we have the largest deficit in history, and he's still wanting to cut taxes.
windelina: (hungover)
I recast the role of Parris last night. He's very rough, but he's got a nice physical look. And hey - beggars can't be choosers.
I'm panicking about costumes. Again. This pisses me off.

We figured out the schedule for the Spring Scenes and I managed to make it work so that I can do the choreography gig for Chet. It's for a Rodgers & Hammerstein revue: "Some Enchanted Evening". So, it's not like I'll be having to choreograph huge West Side Story-esque pieces. It's with Actor's Theatre of Minnesota and will rehearse for 4 weeks and be performed on the riverboaty thing in St. Paul.

And it pays. That's the part I like. And the part where I get a truly professional choreographer hit on my resume.

Tonight, we meet with the financial advisor. Both Monte and I feel like failures because we haven't totally accomplished all of our homework. We are Losers. I suppose it's a sign that he's good/we take it seriously in that we're sort of dreading the encounter. Yet hopeful that he'll take pity on us poor mortals and continue to help us.

So, I'll continue to be furiously busy from now all the way through CONvergence. Fantastic! And if we get into the Fringe, then I'll be busy through the beginning of August!

And there's the part where I'm wanting to start the grad school classes. Oy.

I'm crazy.

Hey Brain

Feb. 8th, 2005 12:06 pm
windelina: (overdose)
Fuck off.

Hey Procrastinator - what's with you wanting me to feel like a failure all the time?

Hey Windy - what's with you still being at a job you're increasingly unmotivated by? Let's get that fixed this year, eh? Some movement on any kind of plan and we'll count it a success.


windelina: (Default)

April 2008

1314 1516171819

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 03:52 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios