Reflecting the fact that a huge chunk of the State of the Union Address shied away from domestic issues, many domestic agencies saw their budgets cut or frozen in the newest budget.
Meanwhile, the war on terror and war in Iraq (not the same thing, no matter what Bush says) get 'impressive increases'.
Domestic priorities like federal aid to schools and health research are squeezed under President Bush's proposed budget for next year, but funding for the Pentagon, the war in Iraq and anti-terrorism efforts get impressive increases.Yes, that education budget and the energy budget are being cut. And it gets worse.Monday's budget tome will have a price tag of more than $2.7 trillion. The departments of Education, Commerce, Interior and Energy will see their budgets, on average, frozen or cut slightly below today's already austere levels.
Some of the new proposed cuts, such as eliminating the $107 million Commodity Supplemental Food Program, are likely to get a chilly reaction on Capitol Hill. The program provides food to low-income mothers and children under 6 years old, as well as to the elderly poor.
It really is true; Bush does not care about poor people or social services. Remember, he already screwed poor people over on their health insurance. He would rather up the budget on the Pentagon $493 billion; plus an additional $120 billion to go towards Iraq and Afghanistan. So while we are spending over a half a trillion dollars on our military budget, apparently we cannot spare one-tenth of a billion to help feed poor people.
And before you say, "Hey, at least he cares about the troops," read on in the article. He proposes asking some veterans to "make higher co-payments for prescription drugs and pay a new $250 annual enrollment fee for their medical care."
Personally, it is things like this that make me ashamed to have Bush as a President. What do you think?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Its not quite as simple as "Bush does not care about poor people or social services." There is a fundamental difference in the way conservatives think about poverty and economic problems as compared to people with a progressive world view.
Conservatives think that "tough love" is the answer to everything. If you give people help, they will become dependent on that help. The only way to solve problems (both domestic and international) is to speak loudly and carry a big stick (apologies to TR).
People with a progressive viewpoint realize that situations are usually more complex than that. There are many different reasons why economic and social problems occur, and sometimes government services are the most efficient way to solve those problems.
What I have been telling everyone i meet is, when the elction rolls
around, don't vote for an incumbent under any circumstances.
But the sheeple don't listen.
Great advice. But usually, it doesn't matter who is elected: people are still not content with the decision they made. This should make us think about the candidates.
Right, that's what I wanted to say. Conservatives (which Bush is NOT) and especially libertarians believe in as little government intervention as possible, and that everytime you want a safety net, charity is supposed to provide that. The philosophy means most issues should be handled by states, with the federal government's main role being foreign policy and defense.