Printable View
http://govexec.com/story_page.cfm?ar...dcn=todaysnews
That's what the proposed budget is to include $400 billion in deficits. I'll just let you all have at it. I suppose the most common answer will have to do with teh Buesh war or cutting military spending but I wanted to share my outrage.
But hey, it's OK by 2012 we'll have a surplus...if everything stays EXACTLY the same.
I remember when the budget first hit ONE trillion dollars - and everybody gasped!
So, it took us 210 years to get to a trillion. Only 20 years to triple that. A trillion here, a trillion there... pretty soon you're talking real money. :laugh4:
Watch C-span. Paulson is talking about it to the Senate Finance committee right now 10:24 EST
Note that the war cost for Afghanistan and Iraq is not strangely not figured in beyond 2009, as well as the ever increasing spending to treat the almost 30.000 seriously injured veterans.
Personally I think it is another shameful move by Mr. Bush to try to make vanish costs, to hide them under other categories and to put an extremely positve spin on the future of the budget. And then he tries to give himself the aura of budget warrior by asking for deep, deep cuts in areas which will make alot of people suffer and which are unacceptable, especially in times of a recession and perhaps even a light stagflation... :thumbsdown:
You also need to note that the total budget of both "wars" are never included in the yearly DoD budget. There is also supplemental funding that Bush asks for in the middle of the year that Congress always approves because of the political ramifications. So we aren't getting the whole picture here. Of course, everyone knows this is a farce, even Bush has to know there is no way Congress will pass this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleander Ardens
Not that it matters, since Congress just let Bush usurp it's one remaining power (the purse) with signing statements. Hail to the king, baby!
Read the US Constitution, article I I believe, the Presidents drafts and submits the budget. Congress funds it or not and the President signs it into law. It's the President's budget, it always has been. Don't see what's changed here.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
He can either sign a law, or veto it. He signed the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008", and is bound by it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
http://washingtontimes.com/article/2...012/commentary
Bush's signing statementQuote:
Article I, section 9 of the Constitution declares, "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law." James Madison, father of the Constitution, acclaimed the power of the purse as an invincible congressional weapon for redressing grievances against the executive.
The president cannot veto congressional inaction in refusing to appropriate funds; and, he cannot spend a dime on the military or otherwise unless Congress affirmatively passes an appropriations bill.
The National Defense Authorization Act's restrictions on President Bush in Iraq were no novelty. Congress has repeatedly legislated to constrain the president's projection of the military abroad or has otherwise overridden his national security policies.
Spineless Democrats should be threatening impeachment proceedings, instead allowing this to stand. Every now and then, you have to smack the dog on the nose and say "No!", otherwise he will begin to ignore you.