Drawing Budgetary Blood

Let the wailing begin!

The annual federal budget ritual got under way yesterday when President Bush put out his numbers -- including the 150 programs that he bragged about axing or slashing at the State of the Union address while neglecting to mention a single one.

Since Bush's self-proclaimed goal is to halve the deficit in four years (after he allowed spending to balloon in his first four years -- not a single veto), the press should hold him as accountable on this as on his Social Security plan.

What happens when a president proposes budget cuts is that the affected groups and their advocates -- senior citizens, farmers, health care providers, educators, poor people -- blitz the media with heart-rending tales of how they will suffer. Those stories may be true -- there are many worthy government programs that were created to meet some need. Cutback stories also appeal to journalists, who can put a face on abstract government statistics by finding a struggling student, subsidized renter or ailing senior citizen to dramatize the impact.

The problem, of course, is that if every program that helps or protects someone is spared, the budget never gets cut and the deficit continues to spiral out of control.

In theory, the Republicans, who used to bill themselves as the party of fiscal restraint, should prevail, since they control both houses. But politicians of all stripes hate cutting programs, which is why GOPers added a big fat Medicare prescription entitlement last year and are unlikely -- to put it mildly -- to blast away at all of the 150 programs targeted by Bush.

In fact, I read in yesterday's Washington Post that congressional officials are warning that many of the proposals are dead on arrival and no more than two dozen are likely to survive. And yesterday's New York Times front page warned that Bush "would more than double the co-payment charged to many veterans for prescription drugs and would require some to pay a new fee of $250 a year for the privilege of using government health care." Expect a flood of such stories.

There's a fairness argument here -- expect to hear Democrats say over and over that Bush doesn't care about the young, the old and the infirm but is hellbent on protecting tax cuts for the wealthy.

The problem with all this as a media story is that while the SS plan will either clearly win or lose, the budget battle will drag on for a year and end in a mishmash of continuing resolutions and late-night legislative compromises that makes it hard to declare winners and losers. That shouldn't stop journalists from trying.

The Boston Globe makes clear the stakes are high: "President Bush yesterday laid out a $2.6 trillion federal budget that would boost national defense while making the deepest cuts in social programs since the Reagan administration."

The Los Angeles Times says Bush isn't being all that austere:

"Even as President Bush proposes deep 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 $2.6-trillion budget for 2006, if approved by Congress, would be more than one-third bigger than the 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 'Contract With America' called for a balanced budget and abolition of entire Cabinet agencies."

The New York Times scoffs at some of the fuzzy math, saying that "the fine print indicates that the goal may be elusive. The budget is notable for including limits on spending that are unlikely to be enacted and for excluding expenses that are sure to be incurred. Here are the most important points:

"¶It assumes that all discretionary spending outside of military and domestic security -- everything from paperclips to space shuttles -- will be frozen for the next five years.

"¶It includes no spending for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006. Those costs are now running about $5 billion a month and are likely to continue at some level in the 2006 fiscal year and beyond.

"¶It omits the initial cost of Mr. Bush's Social Security plan, which would let people divert some of their payroll taxes to private saving accounts. Administration officials estimate the plan would cost $23 billion in 2009 and $754 billion over the next decade."

Other than that, no problemo!

The Washington Post makes a similar point by ticking off the huge numbers:

"Under the president's proposal, lawmakers would have to scrap much of the farm law they passed in 2002 to realize the $8.2 billion in cuts Bush expects from farm subsidies over 10 years. The federal student loan program would need to be restructured to find $10.7 billion over the next decade.

"Bush hopes major changes to Medicaid, the federal health plan for the poor, will shave $45 billion from the program through 2015. He is counting on significant changes to the federal program that ensures private-sector pensions for a 10-year savings of $31 billion. A proposal to consolidate and then cut 18 community development programs from five Cabinet agencies would need a legislative response as well as a reorganization of congressional jurisdictions.

"Separate legislation would probably be needed to eliminate federal subsidies for Amtrak, and Bush is counting on leases from oil exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- but Congress, again, would have to oblige."

Here's a taste of GOP reaction, from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

"Calling many of the cuts in President Bush's fiscal 2006 budget 'unacceptable,' Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.) yesterday said: 'We're going to have to make substantial modifications in the Congress.'

"Specter, a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, singled out the elimination of federal operating subsidies for Amtrak and cuts in veterans' benefits as programs he would work to restore. He also said that the GEAR UP education program for low-income students, created by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), was worth saving, and decried what he said was an overall cut of $500 million in education programs."

All politics is local, as this New York Post piece suggests:

"President Bush's $2.57 trillion budget is a 'meat ax' that slashes billions out of New York, critics said yesterday -- but the spending plan also has $2 billion in incentives to build a rail link between JFK Airport and lower Manhattan."

This Baltimore Sun story makes the same point:

"The Bush administration's effort to limit spending increases in his new budget proposal will gut programs important to Maryland, state lawmakers and advocates say, including Chesapeake Bay cleanup and support for nonprofits that work in the state's poorest communities."

Ditto for the San Francisco Chronicle: "President Bush's efforts to rein in spending in his proposed 2006 budget would cost California $550 million in Medicaid funds next year, which critics say could slash health care services for the state's poorest residents."

Oh, and here's a headline on the Daily Kos site: "Bush says poor kids should not go to college." This has to do with eliminating funding for the TRIO Upward Bound and Talent Search programs.

Bush wasn't on the ballot in Iraq, but still:

"Americans give President Bush his highest job-approval rating in more than a year and show cautious optimism about Iraq in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken shortly after historic Iraqi elections," reports USA Today.

"In reversals from a month ago, majorities now say that going to war in Iraq was not a mistake, that things are going well there and that it's likely democracy will be established in Iraq. Bush's approval rating of 57% is his highest since he reached 59% in January 2004, shortly after U.S. troops captured Saddam Hussein.

"The public remains skeptical about Bush's plans to alter Social Security. Forty-four percent say they approve of his approach, compared with 50% who say they disapprove."

Slate's Tim Noah says the prez is breaking his pledge:

"We will not raise payroll taxes to solve this problem -- President Bush, answering a question about Social Security reform, Dec. 9, 2004. . . .

"There are two ways to raise the payroll tax. You can raise the tax rate, or you can expand the pool of money that gets taxed. Bush probably tells himself that he's keeping his promise not to raise payroll taxes because he still refuses to consider increasing the payroll tax rate above its present level of 12.4 percent. But the Bush White House is clearly sending out signals that it is willing to expand the pool of payroll-taxable income by raising the current cap above $90,000. If that happens, people will pay more money in payroll taxes. I don't see how you avoid calling that a payroll-tax increase."

National Review's David Frum is playing defense on Social Security:

"So I've been getting a lot of emails from liberals and leftists outraged, outraged, OUTRAGED that I would go on television and express doubts about the reality of the Social Security Trust Fund. Why the thing is just crammed full of US Treasury bills! If you or I held hundreds of billions of dollars of Treasury bills, we'd think ourselves pretty comfortably provided for. So if T-bills are good enough for Bill Gates and the Bank of Japan, why aren't they good enough to secure the future of America's retirees?

"NRO readers, being a sophisticated bunch, have probably already spotted the fallacy here. If Fred writes an IOU for $10 to Jim, Jim has an asset. But if Fred writes an IOU to Fred for $10, he has not created an asset for himself -- he's created a reminder notice. And that's the situation of the Trust Fund.

"One branch of the US government (the Treasury) owes another branch (the Trust Fund) a bunch of money. The question is not whether those IOUs are legally binding. Of course they are. The question is: Does the existence of those IOUs in any way make it easier for the US government to pay Social Security benefits? And the answer to that is of course not."

Is "Nightline" running out of time? Here's what the Los Angeles Times has found:

"Three years after narrowly surviving the ax, ABC's long-running 'Nightline' is in jeopardy again.

"Network parent Walt Disney Co. is serious enough about replacing the late-night news show -- hosted by Ted Koppel since 1980 -- to have ordered executives to start devising alternatives, according to sources familiar with the plans.

"ABC News last week shot a pilot for one possible 'Nightline' replacement, a freewheeling show hosted by Washington reporter Jake Tapper and Bill Weir, the co-anchor of the weekend edition of 'Good Morning America,' according to two people inside the network. One of the pilot's top stories was about the Michael Jackson child molestation trial -- exactly the kind of tabloid-friendly fodder that the generally sober-minded 'Nightline' has tended to avoid.

"Disney's ESPN, meanwhile, is said to be developing an all-sports program for ABC's 11:35 p.m. slot, presumably in hopes of luring the relatively abundant supply of young men watching TV at that hour."

Washingtonian has the tale of Vanity Fair writer Judy Bachrach and her unhappy Inauguration Day encounter on Fox:

"On the air from New York, Brigitte Quinn greeted Bachrach, who looks like Lauren Bacall with blond hair.

" 'Judy,' Quinn said, 'welcome to you. We were noticing all the snow in Washington. . . . I hope that doesn't put a crimp in anybody's plans.'

" 'Well,' Bachrach responded, 'I have a feeling that maybe it should put a crimp . . . in the plans of the White House to have such a very lavish inaugural at a time of war.'

"'Really,' Quinn said.

"Then it got testy: Bachrach said Franklin Delano Roosevelt served chicken salad at his wartime inaugural. She said the White House was spending $40 million when troops were dying for lack of proper armor.

"Quinn started to sputter: 'I really didn't want to talk about politics this morning.'

Bachrach's jaw dropped.

" 'Oh, really?' Bachrach said. "I thought I was allowed to talk about what I wanted to talk about.'

"Quinn: 'What should they have cut back on?'

"Bachrach: 'How about 40 million dollars?'

Quinn defended the president and mentioned his prayer service.

" 'Well, gee,' Bachrach said, 'that prayer service should sure keep them safe and warm in their flimsy vehicles in Iraq.'

Quinn had had enough. 'Well, Judy Bachrach, I think we've given you more than your time to give us your point of view this morning.'

"Actually, Bachrach got the hook halfway through the planned segment. . . . Bachrach says she felt shell-shocked as she left the set."

John Dean was on Keith Olbermann's MSNBC show last night, talking about his Deep Throat-is-ill scenario. The former Nixon aide said he learned that a friend, one of his Throat suspect, is ill, but "I obviously want to honor this man's shuffling off with his denial." He also said that "Woodward had reported to [Post Executive Editor Leonard] Downie that indeed this man was ill." When Olbermann asked about Downie's denial (to me) that he'd had any such conversation with Bob Woodward, Dean said Downie "either has a very bad memory" or "may be parsing words."

Somebody's explanation will turn out to be inoperative. Meanwhile, Dean isn't backing off his last list of suspects: Pat Buchanan, Dwight Chapin, Jerry Warren or Ray Price.