Monday :: Feb 28, 2005

Et tu, Broder?

by pessimist

I wrote in With Friends Like these, ... about how William Safire has taken a shot at King George's performance as an international diplomat. Now, from one of the unindicted public co-conspirators in the Valerie Plame Affair, comes these comments:

The sorry fiscal record of a "conservative" administration
David S. Broder

Back-to-back briefings last week put a harsh spotlight on the deep hole left by the budget policies of George Bush's first term.

The bad news, delivered in the first report, is that the camouflaged domestic spending cuts contained in the Bush budget will — if accepted by Congress — do serious damage to education initiatives, low-income assistance and environmental programs over the next five years. The worse news, documented in the second report, is that these cuts will not even begin to deal with the looming calamity of runaway entitlement spending on the retirement and health-care costs of the baby-boom generation. You won't find either of these warnings spelled out in the budget message of the president.

Millions of Americans will be paying the price for the fiscal profligacy of this misnamed conservative government.

Aided and abetted by the So Called Liberal Media pundits who now decry the very things they helped to protect and promote.

By studying the spending caps Bush proposed for the 57 broad functions included in the domestic discretionary budget, the center's experts calculated how much would have to come out of individual programs — assuming Congress accepts Bush's priorities. The results are startling.

* Elementary and secondary education programs, including the president's No Child Left Behind initiative, would be cut by $11.5 billion over the next five years to stay within the caps, with the 2010 year alone seeing a 12-percent reduction from inflation-adjusted 2005 levels.

* The WIC program, which subsidizes the diets of low-income pregnant women and nursing mothers — a major preventive measure against low-weight babies — would be cut by $658 million, enough to reduce coverage in 2010 by 660,000 women.

* Head Start funds would be reduced $3.3 billion over five years, with 118,000 fewer youngsters enrolled in 2010.

* Clean-water and clean-air funding would decline by $6.4 billion over five years, a 20-percent cut in 2010.

* Community-development programs used by cities to build up impoverished neighborhoods would lose $9.2 billion in five years, a 36-percent cut in 2010.

Most of these cuts would come out of state and local budgets, adding to the burdens their taxpayers would have to take up if services are to be maintained.

It is a sorry record for a conservative administration, and we are just beginning to recognize its price.

Just a few years too late there, Broder. You should have been wearing out your calculator long before 2005!

Admit it - you (representative of the media in general) failed to perform your duty to the nation which created the environment in which you earn your wages shilling for the swilling. Your parsimony with parity when covering newsworthy topics is one of the major reasons you have something specific to complain about today.

Do you feel good about yourself? You shouldn't. You claim to be a conservative, and yet you allowed some of the most radical alterations this nation ever saw to come to realization with much cheerleading from you on the sidelines. Your dereliction of duty to your country created a huge fiscal mess you could have helped to prevent.

I hope your retirement fund is affected at least as much as the rest of ours will be. maybe we'll be lucky and you will feel it more than we will.

Much more.

Copyrighted source material contained in this article is presented under the provisions of Fair Use.


This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.

pessimist :: 10:35 AM :: Comments (4) :: Digg It!