A Summary of the Republicans' Buget

[babsbunny]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2ZiZWYzMWNlNzAxZTA4ZWQxYWRiZWM5MmZhNjY4YzU=

Thursday, March 26, 2009

A Summary of the Republicans' Buget

House Republicans are presenting their alternative budget in a few minutes. As we await the details, here is a summary, based on the materials they have distributed in advance. One problem is that there is no scoring yet for the bottom line yet. The other is that there is zero chance this budget will pass. But it is still vital that they present it — President Obama challenged them to do so, and surely there is an alternative to a $23 trillion debt by 2019.

How do Republicans propose to control future deficits? First, they would end a litany of controversial programs of doubtful value to the public:

[NewJeffCT]

1. They spelled it buget?

I even clicked on the link, too.

[provis99]

2. if National Review is for it, I am against it

their idea of government programs to abolish is nothing more than a hit list of successful liberal programs that people want. Also, did they deliberately misspell budget as buget, or are their editors as lazy as Associated Press editors?

[gratuitous]

3. Except the GOP plan didn't make one single proposal for a budget cut

It had more pictures of windmills than actual numbers! I don't know what they're huffing at the Corner in National Reviewland, but they really should knock it off before some innocent cells are destroyed along with the useless brain cells.

I do like, however, that they've latched onto the $23 trillion deficit projection - and I have no idea where that number comes from, but someone might want to see if someone's ass has a sudden cavity. As President Obama made clear in his press conference, if you boost the projected economic growth by 0.4% instead of the CBO's rather pessimistic forecast of 2.2%, there will be no deficit. Considering that weather forecasters can't even tell you if it will rain a week from Tuesday, making hard-and-fast deficit projections for 10 years from now seems a fool's errand.

Fortunately, the staff of the National Review is more than qualified.