You've got to be kidding

How do you get away with this? I mean, really, how do you get away with calling an increase in spending a cut? The ONLY reductions in the Deparment of Health and Human Services budget I spotted were on the discretionary side, like on page 4 of the PDF. It drops programs that have proven to be wasteful and a targeted reduction in fraud. If Pelosi, (D-CA) is supporting wasteful spending and fraud, she should say so more clearly. Look at page six for "Total Outlays", the DHHS budget (think Medicare and Medicaid) goes from a budget of $707 billion to $736 billion. By my math that is a $29 billion dollar increase, not a reduction. Also note that the military budget is targeted to be $651 billion. Again, according to my math, a military budget of $651 billion is $85 billion dollars less than DHHS's $736 billion dollar budget. Remember that when you see these.


I really agree with this quote from Senator Conrad (D-N.D), "The debt has done nothing under this president's watch but skyrocket." Nussle followed up with "Then let's open up mandatory spending." Yes, and Yes. Bush has done almost nothing to limit spending, which is why debt has gone up. Tax revenues increased, but nothing was done with all that extra cash coming in to reduce the debt load. It all went out the door in earmarks. Opening up mandatory spending is the best way to reduce the budget.


All of the sections of the budget can be found here.


Let me tell you some of my thoughts on much of this wasteful spending from the overview. Take a look at page 3 of the PDF at the section titled "Quality Education". First the good, "It expands school choice and charter school options for students in need." Yea! In the "could go either way" section, we have "It provides $14.3 billion in Title I funding for low-income schools, a 63-percent increase since 2001." You can't tell whether this is good or bad because it doesn't say whether more money is the answer or if it's just more money. The paragraph above it indicates that test scores have improved, but it doesn't indicate whether it's because of more money, different teachers, different students or sun-spots.

And here is where college education just got more expensive for everyone:

The Budget also takes steps to make college more affordable for families struggling with rising tuition costs. In September 2007, the President signed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act into law, which achieved his longstanding goal of increasing need-based aid for students. The Act provided $11.4 billion in new funding for Pell Grants over the next five years.

Why will it get more expensive? Because, now colleges can charge more money. Most (not all, but more than than not) colleges have trust funds. Several have funds that are measured in billions of dollars, and their expenses are fairly flat. It's more that colleges are charging more because the government will pay, rather than they need the money.


Let's move on to healthcare, still on page 3 of the PDF:

The Budget seeks to improve Americans’ access to affordable health care by fostering a true marketplace for health care, encouraging competition, and improving efficiency.

Yea again! It goes on about encouraging competition in the marketplace. Yea! But then the President blows it with "It also proposes reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program..." This program is not needed. Each state already have programs for this. A Federal one is redundant and unnecessary. And Hillary is trying to use it as Trojan Horse to reduce the quality and quantity of care with Universal Healthcare.


Energy Security on Page 4. The first sentence leads with "...and confronting climate change." What?!? The only thing that will "confront climate change" is to stabilize Earth's orbit, stabilize Earth's rotational axis, stabilize the Moon's orbit, stabilize the Earth's (and the Sun's) magnetic shield, stabilize the Sun's energy output and stabilize the number of sunspots the Sun produces. Everything else humans do has less than 1% affect on climate, if that much. I will believe that humans cause global climate change (formerly known as Global Warming) when someone can explain how humans caused the Ice Age and subsequent global warming. Also, you need to explain how Lief Ericsson could farm on Greenland (global warming), and subsequent global cooling years after that era.

Let's look at actual climate data. What this shows is that the Sun becomes more productive first, then methane increase just a little ahead of temperature, then CO2 increases. The Ice Age is in between the first and second tick marks on the bottom of the chart. The labels and the lines are color coordinated.

Spending government money on "confronting climate change" is a waste.

It later talks about renewable fuels mandates. Again this is a waste. Let the market come up with ideas. Government funded studies and mandates SLOW DOWN PROGRESS. It then proclaims that this will "...reduce vehicle air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions." Errr, how? Oil is a carbon based fuel and produces CO2 and water vapor as exhaust and ethanol and biodiesel are carbon based fuels that produce CO2 and water vapor. Ethanol and biodiesel also take more energy to produce than oil products. It then goes on about wanting to slow down new energy development with the Advanced Energy Initiative.

I can't take it anymore...President Bush has governed like a liberal and the liberal Republicans have taken most of the delegates to date. I just don't get the Republican Party. I want someone in office that will actually reduce spending on the unnecessary, wasteful, fraudulent and redundant. I want to eliminate Federal programs that are also handled by the states. I want to reduce regulations. THAT's when you will see the economy really take off. THAT's when companies will have the money to hire new people and explore new markets. I also want to get rid of most of the spending on programs like the National Institute of Health ($29 billion budget) and Advanced Energy Initiative that slow down scientific advancement. Where is that candidate?