Wall Street Journal: Budge Hits $3 Trillion as Debt Marks Bush Legacy

[Hissyspit]

Source: Wall Street Journal

Budget Hits $3 Trillion
As Debt Marks Bush Legacy
By MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS and JOHN D. MCKINNON
February 1, 2008

WASHINGTON -- George W. Bush took office in 2001 with budget surpluses projected to stretch years into the future. But it's almost certain that when he returns to Texas next year, the president will leave behind a trail of deficits and debt that will sharply constrain his successor.

On Monday, the president will unveil a $3 trillion-plus budget request for his final year, which is likely to show a deficit of more than $400 billion. New details of the budget emerged yesterday, with officials saying the White House plans to keep a lid on nonsecurity discretionary spending. It wants to cut about $200 billion from the government's medical programs for seniors and the poor. (See related story.)


The longer-term picture is darker. Despite his efforts, Mr. Bush failed to work out a deal with Congress to tackle the spiraling costs of government health and retirement programs. The next president, if he or she serves two terms, could find the U.S. government so deeply in hock that it would face losing its Triple-A credit rating, something that has never happened since Moody's Investors Service began grading U.S. securities in 1917.

As a result, the ambitions of Mr. Bush's successor to cut taxes, institute universal health care or aid troubled homeowners might have to give way to the reality of soaring costs for Social Security, the Medicare program for the elderly and the Medicaid program for the poor.

"We kicked this can down the road about as long as it can be," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said at a hearing this week. "It will absolutely bedevil the next administration."

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120183030007834031-tN6HNxjUdJ6JzSLafKsxfC0wHkY_20080302.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

[saltpoint]

1. This is why we need a business man like Bush in the Oval Office:

backbreaking deficits and economic downturn.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

2. "It wants to cut about $200 billion from the government's medical programs for seniors and the poor"

[tanyev]

3. He's gonna be laughing his ass off, watching his successor trying to clean up his messes.

He'll get an even bigger kick out of it if the successor is a Democrat.

[swag]

4. Might want to correct the WSJ's misspelling of "budget" in the subject line.

Whoops, posted in wrong place.

Lo siento mucho.

[boricua79]

5. FAILURE

W...you FAILED again...just like every other venture you've EVER engaged in.

You're a disgrace to your family and you're a disgrace to the nation, and you're a disgrace to the world.

FAILURE!

[Lasher]

6. Starve the beast.

This was all planned, you know.

[DeepModem Mom]

7. K&R

[llmart]

8. And yet.....

wasn't it the WSJ that was absolutely giddy about promoting Bush/Cheney and their cockeyed fiscal policies from day 1? It took them this many years to finally admit that we had a hefty surplus before these jackasses screwed everything up?

[grytpype]

9. Democrats build the country up, Republicans wreck the country and steal the pieces.

That's the way it is.

[One_Life_To_Give]

10. Gramm-Rudman Failure comes home to roost

Tell me again how this act was not needed!

[ReformedChris]

11. UselessTax Cuts, War, and Overspending all

Contributed to this disasterous situation. I feel sorry for whoever has to clean up this mess, because some very tough choices are going to have to be made. I just feel that spending has to go down (Defense comes first to mind) and upper income and corporate taxes have to progressively go up. It's amazing how Repukes are so dedicated to Tax Cuts yet continue to want endless spending in spite of deficits. I hope they don't have to touch NASA's Constellation Program, because it is a great investment in the future of America and pumps plenty of money into American industrial jobs.

[Blue_Tires]

12. i thought the WSJ loved the way Bush did business...and war

haven't read much criticism before now....

whoever the next president is will have an insurmountable mess to clean up...

[gratuitous]

15. That is my recollection as well

Curious, or maybe it's not, that the only places the Urinal can think of to cut the federal budget are places where spending goes to every American regardless of income. They don't seem too anxious to cut defense contracts or repeal those tax cuts they've found so personally enriching. It seems to me that overrich fat cats like ExxonMobil have profited enormously from all this war; why isn't the next step to ask them for some of that money back to benefit all of the society, and particularly the poorer segments which have borne a disproporationate share of the sacrifice?

[Javaman]

13. So here is skidmarks* legacy. He* broke the US economy. nt

[fascisthunter]

14. A Republican President Did It AGAIN!!!

GOP voters are really gullible to think ringing up debts reagrdless for their reasons is good for their country. My God how frustratingly stupid can one be....

[maddezmom]

16. Bush budget would pour money into defense

Bush budget would pour money into defense

By: David Rogers
Feb 1, 2008 03:50 PM EST


President Bush’s 2009 budget, to be unveiled Monday, is expected to call for an almost $36 billion increase in core Defense Department spending, apart from the larger costs of maintaining U.S. military operations in Iraq and the overall war against terrorism.

An estimated $515.4 billion would be dedicated to defense including family housing and health care for troops, according to drafts of Pentagon documents, which highlight increases for new weapons procurement but also the huge costs of maintaining today’s professional military.

Military pay and health care costs would grow by $9 billion, an even larger increase than the $8.3 billion dedicated to strategic modernization.

more:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8266.html

[Heywood J]

17. So under *, the total debt nearly doubled and government spending is up 50%.

Can we finally get rid of those "Republican=responsible" and "Republican=smaller government" saws?