Fantasy Budget

Peter G. Gosselin and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar write in the Los Angeles Times: "President Bush, in his new budget, wants to pare back many of the government safety nets that cushion the effect of illness and old age for millions of Americans, replacing them with arrangements the White House says assure greater benefits but that also place greater burdens on individuals.. . . .

"For the immediate future, few of Bush's safety net proposals are likely to win congressional passage with midterm elections approaching in November. . . .

"White House strategists understand election-year realities. The proposals were apparently designed to maintain the president's credibility as a leader who is ready to take on issues such as healthcare. They also are intended to show the administration's concern about federal deficits, though Bush has presided over substantial growth in federal spending."

David E. Sanger writes in the New York Times: "Democrats said Mr. Bush's emphasis on tax cuts had created what in their view was a false choice between addressing the budget deficit and maintaining necessary social programs. . . .

"Representative John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said, 'A budget is a statement of moral choices, and this budget makes the wrong choices.'

"The budget will pose particularly agonizing choices for the Republican majority. Republicans are caught between pressure from conservatives to make real headway in limiting the size and role of the federal government, and the political reality that votes to cut programs that touch the lives of millions of people could make them vulnerable to Democratic attacks in the fall."

Martin Crutsinger writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush, constrained by wars, hurricanes and exploding budget deficits, has sent Congress a 2007 spending plan that is garnering howls of pain from farmers, teachers, doctors and a wide array of other groups with special interests.

"Democrats, as expected, pronounced the Republican president's budget plan dead on arrival. But many Republicans were equally sharp in their reservations about the $2.77 trillion spending blueprint the administration unveiled on Monday."

Compare and Contrast

It's interesting to see how similar this year's budget -- and this year's budget coverage -- is to last year's. Read my Feb. 8, 2005 , column for comparison (scroll down to 'Budget Watch'.)

$300 Billion and No Apologies

Kenneth R. Bazinet writes in the New York Daily News: "When the estimated cost of the Iraq war soared beyond $300 billion yesterday, White House officials said there were no regrets about humiliating two top aides who had accurately predicted the war's cost.

"Retired Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki and White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey had pegged the cost of the war at $200 billion. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it would cost only $50 billion.

"Lindsey was fired and Shinseki was shunted aside.