WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush is considering asking Congress to freeze domestic spending next year or cut it slightly, even as he prods lawmakers to allow younger workers to divert some of their Social Security taxes into personal investment accounts.

The two plans, which promise to be dominant issues next year, share a common thread: massive federal deficits that have set consecutive records, peaking at $413 billion last year. The shortfalls have prompted Bush to seek savings from non-defense, non-domestic security programs, and have limited his options for shoring up Social Security for the looming retirement of baby boomers.

"This is an issue on which I campaigned and I'm still standing," Bush said of revamping Social Security at a White House economic conference, words he hoped would prompt support from lawmakers loathe to meddle with the giant retirement system. (Related: Bush says it's time to fix system)

Bush wants to let younger workers take part of the Social Security taxes they now pay and invest the money in private accounts. Democrats say the proposal would enrich Wall Street bankers while further weakening the solvency of Social Security. (Related: Accounts may not be answer)

In 2018, Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes. In 2042, the system will be able to cover 73% of promised benefits, according to Social Security's trustees.

Bush said the country can't afford to wait any longer to fix the problem.

"The crisis is now," the president told the economic forum.

On the spending side, Bush is moving toward holding programs Congress must approve annually — except domestic security and defense — to the same $388 billion they received this year, say congressional aides and lobbyists speaking on condition of anonymity. The part of the budget he would restrict also excludes automatically made payments like Medicare and interest on the federal debt.

The president has yet to make final decisions on the $2.5 trillion budget he will send Congress in February, administration officials say. Even so, he and his aides have made it clear that domestic programs will be squeezed.

I look forward to working with Congress on fiscal restraint," the president said. "And it's not going to be easy."

House and Senate aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the White House was considering cutting such programs as housing, grants for community development, purchases of new equipment for the Federal Aviation Administration, and Army Corps of Engineers water projects.

Even the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, an administration favorite, was facing an increase of just 1%, pending appeals to the White House by outgoing NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, a lobbyist said.

The zero-sum game that is federal budgeting means that if spending for next year is held flat, for every dollar increase that administration favorites like education or veterans receive, another dollar must be cut elsewhere. Even a program receiving the same as this year would lose purchasing power due to inflation, now running about 3% annually.

Bush's spending blueprint would be among the toughest for domestic programs since President Reagan's budgets of the 1980s. Overall domestic spending has grown every year but three since 1987 — in 1995 and 1996, when Republicans first recaptured Congress, and in 2000, immediately after a one-time influx of U.S. aid to help poor and debtor countries.

The growth of domestic programs slowed to about 1% this year. Even so, overall expenditures including defense and domestic security continue to climb, largely due to the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Congress approved $87.5 billion for those wars in fall 2003 and $25 billion more last spring, and Bush is expected to request another $75 billion to $100 billion early in 2005.

As word of Bush's still-evolving plans for domestic spending has seeped out, it has cheered conservative Republicans. They spent much of Bush's first term criticizing him for letting spending grow too rapidly and pressuring congressional leaders to try clamping down on spending.

Excluding homeland security and emergencies like hurricanes, domestic spending has grown by 27% since Bush took office in 2001.

"I really do believe that this White House gets it," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., a leading House conservative.

Last February, Bush proposed a 0.5% increase for domestic programs, which Congress eventually doubled. Democrats and many moderate Republicans are certain to fight for their priorities when Congress begins translating Bush' budget proposal to actual spending legislation next year.

"This tells you the administration's priority is tax cuts over fiscal responsibility and providing central services to the American people," said Thomas Kahn, Democratic staff director of the House Budget Committee.

Last May, the White House budget office distributed a memo to federal agencies warning them to anticipate an overall domestic spending cut of about 0.7% next year. At the time, White House officials called the document an early step in the budget process.

Link to article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-17-bush-freeze_x.htm?csp=34

For one thing S.S. is NOT in dire straits right now. If Dubya changes it, it will be. This is just another one of his lies to get his agenda passed (WMD anyone?). The simple solution to "fix" S.S. so it will be around forever is to remove the cap. That way, people like Bill Gates will be paying his fare share. But to turn S.S. into private accounts-the only ones who will benefit are the Wall Street Brokers.




Cat

For one thing S.S. is NOT in dire straits right now. If Dubya changes it, it will be. This is just another one of his lies to get his agenda passed (WMD anyone?). The simple solution to "fix" S.S. so it will be around forever is to remove the cap. That way, people like Bill Gates will be paying his fare share. But to turn S.S. into private accounts-the only ones who will benefit are the Wall Street Brokers.




Cat


Smell that?  It's class warfare.  Make the rich pay more because they are successful.  The tired old BS from the democrats.  It still doesn't work with the American people.

The new Fox News Opinions Dynamics poll seems to say otherwise:

Social Security

Six in 10 Americans support giving people the choice to invest privately a small percentage of their Social Security (search) contributions, down 7 percentage points since the beginning of the year (67 percent in January 2004). More than four in 10 seniors oppose the idea, while almost three out of four Americans age 45 and under like the idea.

Even though there are wide partisan differences on this issue, majorities of both Democrats (53 percent) and Republicans (71 percent) give a thumbs-up to the personal investment option.

A 55 percent majority says if they had the choice today, they would invest some of their Social Security money in personal accounts. Young people under age 30 are the most likely to say they would take this option (71 percent), as would many of those ages 30-45 (69 percent). In addition, more than six in 10 of those living in households with an annual income over $50,000 say they would invest in personal savings accounts.

Not surprisingly, younger people are more skeptical about receiving Social Security benefits. Three out of four baby boomers say they do expect to receive benefits when they retire, but 32 percent of those between the ages of 30-45 and 39 percent of those under age 30 think benefits will not be there for them.

The class warfare around here, GWB, is coming from the Bush Administration. 
They are L-Y-I-N-G about Social Security.  S.S.  is NOT in jeopardy.
As Paul Krugman wrote recently in his NYT column,
For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120804X.shtml

You will never admit to yourself the phony crisis and the underlying scam.  Every single thing Bush does is intended to make the rich richer and hand over more civic control to private institutions.  With S.S. privatization, the intention is to give the financial services sector the biggest windfall they've ever had and further enslave the American public to the interests of Wall Street.  If every American life is tied to the stock market, corporate and financial bosses can blackmail voters into supporting only "pro-business" candidates.  All they have to say is, "If you vote for candidate X, the markets will fall, and you'll be out your money!"

According to the most conservative economic forecasts, if the economy grows at under 2 percent for the next 35 years, current payroll taxes will only cover 75% of benefits after about 2038.  Now, a 25 percent loss is nothing to just shrug off, however, we must consider the stock market's performance at say a 1.9% economic growth rate for the next four decades.  The whole institution would be in the crapper, and Joe Average wouldn't be making one thin dime on investments.  He'd be better off with his 75% from S.S.

The Bush people know this already.  They're not concerned about it.  Their goal is not to secure the well being of average Americans, but to transfer all commonly held wealth (such as the Social Security trust fund) and hand it over to the private holdings of a greedy few.

GWB and the rest of the GOP booster club will deny this, of course, and keep on drinking that Republican Kool-Aide. 
::) ::) ::)

Both Cat and Maxwell are missing the point.  The point is that democrats were complaining about Bush and spending, saying "you must cut taxes and spending."  He is now moving towards cutting spending, just like a true fiscal conservative.  More money in peoples' pockets, and less for the f***ing government. 

I've always said here that I have two gripes with President Bush.  His unwillingness to close the borders, and his spending.  It seems one on that list MAY be crossed off. 

Now if he'll just add more border patrol, and not a lame 10,000, I mean 100,000 more border patrol...or nation guard/army.

And don't democrats ever get tired of this "but the poor people" crap?  The poor reelected Bush.  While the billionaires like George Soros, Bill Gates, and Peter Lewis supported John Kerry.

The class warfare around here, GWB, is coming from the Bush Administration. 
They are L-Y-I-N-G about Social Security.  S.S.  is NOT in jeopardy.
As Paul Krugman wrote recently in his NYT column,
For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120804X.shtml

You will never admit to yourself the phony crisis and the underlying scam.  Every single thing Bush does is intended to make the rich richer and hand over more civic control to private institutions.  With S.S. privatization, the intention is to give the financial services sector the biggest windfall they've ever had and further enslave the American public to the interests of Wall Street.  If every American life is tied to the stock market, corporate and financial bosses can blackmail voters into supporting only "pro-business" candidates.  All they have to say is, "If you vote for candidate X, the markets will fall, and you'll be out your money!"

According to the most conservative economic forecasts, if the economy grows at under 2 percent for the next 35 years, current payroll taxes will only cover 75% of benefits after about 2038.  Now, a 25 percent loss is nothing to just shrug off, however, we must consider the stock market's performance at say a 1.9% economic growth rate for the next four decades.  The whole institution would be in the crapper, and Joe Average wouldn't be making one thin dime on investments.  He'd be better off with his 75% from S.S.

The Bush people know this already.  They're not concerned about it.  Their goal is not to secure the well being of average Americans, but to transfer all commonly held wealth (such as the Social Security trust fund) and hand it over to the private holdings of a greedy few.

GWB and the rest of the GOP booster club will deny this, of course, and keep on drinking that Republican Kool-Aide. 
::) ::) ::)


Absolutely on the money.


Smell that?  It's class warfare.  Make the rich pay more because they are successful.  The tired old BS from the democrats. It still doesn't work with the American people.

The new Fox News Opinions Dynamics poll seems to say otherwise:



Why should the tax on SS income be capped (at something like 84,000?)  Why shouldn't all income be taxed for SS?  Why should you and I pay a much higher % of our income in SS taxes that Bill Gates et al?  After all, its a flat tax, just what some of you Repubs want.  Your logic on this one is totally inconsistant, but I guess with your worship of the wealthy, you don't see that.

And again you're quoting a Foux News poll?  You just don't get the idea figures lie and liars figure, or that there are 3 kinds of liars, plain liars, damn liars, and statisticians.  I'd like to see how Foux News draws its polls.

Why should the tax on SS income be capped (at something like 84,000?)  Why shouldn't all income be taxed for SS?  Why should you and I pay a much higher % of our income in SS taxes that Bill Gates et al?  After all, its a flat tax, just what some of you Repubs want.  Your logic on this one is totally inconsistant, but I guess with your worship of the wealthy, you don't see that.

And again you're quoting a Foux News poll?  You just don't get the idea figures lie and liars figure, or that there are 3 kinds of liars, plain liars, darn liars, and statisticians.  I'd like to see how Foux News draws its polls.


Why should they pay more?  Because they earn more?  To make them pays thousands and maybe even over 100,000, while others pay near nothing just because they make more money, does not fit well with a free market economy.  I'm sick of this class warfare, make the poor jealous of the rich, Karl Marx style sh**.

And I have NEVER said I supported a flat tax.  A national sales tax, with the doing away with of the 16th amendment?  Yes.  That's bound to pass (hopefully)....the democrat's are still living in the past on economic issues.

Wasn't this one of the things Mushroom hated?  I remember him saying something about this.  To dismiss what I wrote, just because it was quoted from Fox News is beyond stupid.  Fox News, like it or not, was one of only three polls that called the 2000 elections correctly (along with Zogby and Harris.)  Also, from what I remember, Fox News's final poll for the 2004 election was: Bush 51%, Kerry 48%.  Pretty dam* close, eh?

So, what I am understanding GW, is that you prefer that the mega-rich shouldn't have to pay anything in taxes while the rest of us "little people" pay it all? That is what Dubya is going for.

As for Dubya's spending-yeah it should be curved, unfortunately what is going to be affected are things that matter to most of us-like S.S., public education, and roads. There are other programs that help people who find themselves in difficult situations but I know you could care less about them. Yes, I am talking about Welfare, food stamps, etc. This is all so Dubya can give mega $$$ to his buddies-like Halliburton.

Class warfare-you bet it is and it is not the "liberals" waging it. It is this corrupt Administration. Another pre-empted strike. And we have to fight for what little we get. And for your information, I am not a Democrat-I am an Independent which means that I don't buy into or "parrot" either party. I have a mind of my own where I can think for myself and do not need any party to tell me HOW to think.




Cat

Ya. What she said!

Why should they pay more?  Because they earn more?  To make them pays thousands and maybe even over 100,000, while others pay near nothing just because they make more money, does not fit well with a free market economy.  I'm sick of this class warfare, make the poor jealous of the rich, Karl Marx style sh**.




We all, rich or poor, pay the same rate on the first (I think) $87,000 of income.  We all earn benefits based on our income.  What justifies this cap?  Evan most of your fellow travalers, like Steve Forbs, think that a flat tax is a good idea.  But a flat tax with a cap?  Now that's class warfare with a capital W.  Say $50,000 income pays 10%, $5,000.  Some one with a $200,000 incomes pays 10% of $87,000, ie $8,700, which is 4.35% of their income.  And when you get to the Bill Gates level, the percentage befomes infantesimal.  How is that in any way fair?

And I ask you  again, have you ever actually read Karl Marx?

And don't democrats ever get tired of this "but the poor people" crap?  The poor reelected Bush.  While the billionaires like George Soros, Bill Gates, and Peter Lewis supported John Kerry.

The entire contemporary conservative movement was funded by billionaire industrialists who wish to send the country back to 1901.  Soros, Gates, and Lewis are simply smart enough to realize that would be a disaster for the poor--and the middle class, and the rich, and the super rich, and everybody in between.  I haven't heard much from Bill Gates, Jr., but Bill Gate, Sr. is quite outspoken.  He's a good example of conscience.  He understands that his son did NOT become the richest man in America in a vacuum. 

It was more the upper and middle classes that elected Bush.  Many millions of working class people either don't bother to go to the polls, or they are intimidated, robbed, or tricked out of their vote.  Yes, many other millions of poor folks who did successfully vote for the candidate of their choice did vote for Bush.  What can I say?  They are ignorant.  They have been deceived, bamboozled, hoodwinked, and hornswoggled.  They shoot themselves in the foot, they slit their own throats, and they sink their own boat.  Poor people voting Republican is a national tragedy.

Why should they pay more?  Because they earn more?  To make them pays thousands and maybe even over 100,000, while others pay near nothing just because they make more money, does not fit well with a free market economy.  I'm sick of this class warfare, make the poor jealous of the rich, Karl Marx style sh**.
Yes, they should pay more because they earn more.  The money needs to come from where the money is.  It is bad for the economy to make the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the rich.
You know what REALLY does not fit well in a free market economy?  Corporate welfare , crony capitalism , reverse Robin Hood plutocratic gvernment George W. Bush style sh**.
It's not about jealousy, it's about justice...it's about morality.  Of course, the right-wing only talks of morality when it comes to other people's sex lives.
::) ::) ::)

Yes, they should pay more because they earn more.  The money needs to come from where the money is.  It is bad for the economy to make the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the rich.
You know what REALLY does not fit well in a free market economy?  Corporate welfare , crony capitalism , reverse Robin Hood plutocratic gvernment George W. Bush style sh**.
It's not about jealousy, it's about justice...it's about morality.  Of course, the right-wing only talks of morality when it comes to other people's sex lives.
 


Very well said, Max.



Cat

Ditto that.