2008 Woodie Awards
Bush's Budget Makes Waves in Washington
Katrina Grochocki
Issue date: 2/16/05 Section: Features
- Page 1 of 2 next >
In an effort to make good on campaign promises and to put a dent in the projected $427 billion national deficit, the Bush administration released a controversial projected budget earlier this week, proposing serious changes for the 2006 fiscal year.
While most of us may hear $427 billion deficit and think, "Finally! Someone's poorer than me!" the deficit may not be in as critical a state as one might think. Financial analysts stress the importance of comparing the numbers against the national GDP (Gross Domestic Product), a general measure of the condition of the economy. In 2004, the deficit measure was up roughly 3.6 percent, still greatly below the most recent low of 6 percent in 1983 and in 1943, when wartime expenditures placed the national deficits at a garish 30.3 percent of the national GDP.
In spite of the fact that the subject matter may seem utterly tedious, this budget has some serious implications, attempting to curb that still-large, aforementioned deficit by cutting funding for twelve of the government's twenty-three major government agencies. In spite of criticism over the proposed cuts, President Bush insists that programs being affected by these reductions are those that have already proven themselves to be ineffective and shown chronically disappointing results.
Among programs threatened with cutbacks or elimination are Amtrak subsidies, federal grants for literacy and drug-awareness programs and major cuts to the Department of Agriculture, which has officials in the department worried that the level of the cut will put farmers at an unfair disadvantage.
The budget is still by no means ready to roll; sources estimate that Congress will still be debating the plan for several more months. Both sides are already divided over the issue with many Democrats crying foul over the loss of worthwhile domestic programs, whereas the Republicans deem the reductions necessary in order to sustain sufficient funding for more important programs, such as homeland security and an increase in funding for valuable humanitarian programs that have shown great promise like foreign aid for Africa's escalating HIV/AIDS crisis.
While most of us may hear $427 billion deficit and think, "Finally! Someone's poorer than me!" the deficit may not be in as critical a state as one might think. Financial analysts stress the importance of comparing the numbers against the national GDP (Gross Domestic Product), a general measure of the condition of the economy. In 2004, the deficit measure was up roughly 3.6 percent, still greatly below the most recent low of 6 percent in 1983 and in 1943, when wartime expenditures placed the national deficits at a garish 30.3 percent of the national GDP.
In spite of the fact that the subject matter may seem utterly tedious, this budget has some serious implications, attempting to curb that still-large, aforementioned deficit by cutting funding for twelve of the government's twenty-three major government agencies. In spite of criticism over the proposed cuts, President Bush insists that programs being affected by these reductions are those that have already proven themselves to be ineffective and shown chronically disappointing results.
Among programs threatened with cutbacks or elimination are Amtrak subsidies, federal grants for literacy and drug-awareness programs and major cuts to the Department of Agriculture, which has officials in the department worried that the level of the cut will put farmers at an unfair disadvantage.
The budget is still by no means ready to roll; sources estimate that Congress will still be debating the plan for several more months. Both sides are already divided over the issue with many Democrats crying foul over the loss of worthwhile domestic programs, whereas the Republicans deem the reductions necessary in order to sustain sufficient funding for more important programs, such as homeland security and an increase in funding for valuable humanitarian programs that have shown great promise like foreign aid for Africa's escalating HIV/AIDS crisis.