Big Guv'mint

"Fiscal Responsibility": "

Even as President Bush proposes significant cuts in healthcare, farm subsidies and other domestic programs, his new budget makes one thing clear about the legacy of his first term in the White House: The era of big government is back.

Bush's $2.57-trillion budget for 2006, if approved by Congress, would be more than a third bigger than the 2001 budget he inherited four years ago. It is a monument to how much Republicans' guiding fiscal philosophy has changed over the 10 years since the GOP's Contract With America called for a balanced budget and abolition of entire Cabinet agencies.

...However, Bush's budget projections likely understate future deficits as they do not include the full costs of three priorities at the core of what he seeks as his second-term legacy: ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, and overhauling Social Security.

The era of big government never ended, really. The article states that "No longer are Republicans arguing with Democrats about whether government should be big or small. Instead, they are at odds over what kind of big government the U.S. should have." The arguments have always been over rather or not spending to help poor people is a good idea, not over government spending, period. Military spending, tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy, subsidizing R&D with public money only to turn the results over to private corporations for private profit...these are things Republicans and Democrats have agreed on over the years.

But it is still shocking that this budget is as big as it is without including either the war in Iraq or in Afghanistan. How can they get away with that without having the whole damn country just laugh at them? It's also shocking to hear things like this:

...$45 billion over 10 years that is to be cut from Medicaid, the shared federal-state health care program for the poor and disabled. Food stamp benefits would be eliminated for 200,000 to 300,000 people, and a freeze in child-care funding would cut the number of low-income children receiving help by 300,000 in 2009.

and then turn around and read stuff like this:

But even amid the cutbacks, some presidential priorities would remain flush. Youth programs advocating sexual abstinence would increase by $39 million, to $206 million, while $161 million would be set aside for grants to faith-based organizations to "mentor children of prisoners and provide a safe place for young pregnant and parenting mothers." In another sign of the times, financing for the apprehension of Army deserters would double.

Yes, abstinence programs... Hey, didn't Bush try those in his home state of Texas? How'd that go?

The study [conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University] showed about 23 percent of ninth-grade girls, typically 13 to 14 years old, had sex before receiving abstinence education. After taking the course, 29 percent of the girls in the same group said they had had sex.

Yes, double funding for that then! Haven't they figured out that having school tell kids NOT to do something does nothing other than make kids WANT to do it? This is why sex education is such a good idea: nothing will make kids think sex is less cool than hearing their teachers talk about it all the time.