Will Democrats Become A Real Reform Party?

February 6, 2005
by Stephen Crockett
Democratic Talk Radio

The reaction of grassroots Democrats in almost every community in America to the tendency of Washington’s elected Democrats to support the worst of Bush’s appointments and policies is starting to have a real political impact. The impending selection of Howard Dean as the new Chairman of the Democratic National Committee highlights this development. Democratic Senators and House members are starting to get the message.

The Senators who voted to confirm Gonzales as Attorney General and Rice as Secretary of State are facing a very angry base of Democratic activists. Many Democratic activists are encouraging primary challenges to these incumbents.

The activist base of the entire Democratic Party is angry and disappointed by the failure of Democrats in the House and Senate to challenge the legitimacy of Bush’s reelection because of election fraud and vote manipulation. Only California Senator Barbara Boxer among Senate Democrats demonstrated the kind of real leadership desired by the activist base of the Democratic Party. The Corporate Media and the Republican Spin Machine savagely attacked Senator Boxer as expected. The real workers and backbone of the Democratic Party loved her courage and actions. Boxer could defeat Kerry in almost any future Democratic Presidential primary based solely on her challenge to Bush’s Ohio electors.

Democrats truly believe that election fraud, vote suppression and the misuse of office by Republican Secretaries of State at the state level have permitted the Republicans to steal two Presidential elections in a row. They believe that the Republican-dominated Corporate Media has been bought with tax breaks and lax enforcement of anti-monopoly regulations to the point that election outrages are ignored.

Because the Corporate Media is failing to do its job, the public fails to understand the extent of the problem that is undermining our election system and thereby our American Democracy!

These rotten elections are giving the Bush Republicans an excuse to push an array of radical Right-Wing policies and radical Right-Wing appointees. The result is government for and by Wall Street instead of average Americans. We have tax cuts for the Super Wealthy and Corporate interests that are not deserved or healthy for the American economy. We have new bureaucratic curbs on trade unions. We have weakened rules against polluting corporations. We have an explosion of corporations sending American jobs and investment capital out of the nation for their personal profit with Bush Administration support.

Our citizens are losing our abilities to curb corporate excesses in the courts in the false name of “tort reform.” HMOs and drug companies are designing government healthcare programs for their profits instead of the needs of taxpayers and citizens. Tennessee’s “Senator HMO” Bill Frist has been selected to be the Republican Senate Majority Leader.

George W. Bush has decided to “piratize” Social Security so his Wall Street allies can profit. The Bush Republicans are seeking to undermine the Social Security program they have largely opposed since 1936 beginning with Alf Landon. It has been reported that Bush has railed repeatedly against Social Security over the course of his life as far back as his college days.

The Iraq War has been a complete disaster for American foreign policy and America taxpayers. We have created many new terrorists that are killing American soldiers, American contractors and our allies every day. The Iraq War has weakened our military and undermined our fight against terrorism. We have lost much of our moral high ground around the world. Our own Constitution has been undermined by the actions of the Bush Administration. Our national treasury has been raided by corporations backing Bush Republicanism in the course of funding Bush’s Iraq War.

Democratic activists are outraged that our Democratic Senators and House members are often collaborating with the Bush Republicans on these issues. Playing “Republican Lite” has been a real disaster in terms of policy or electoral success. Corporate Bush Republican ideas of reform are almost universally bad jokes on American citizens and taxpayers. Democratic Senators and House members need to become real fighters and speak for the Democratic activists they should to be representing. We need elected Democrats who represent true Democratic values and the grassroots of the Party!

Millions of new voters will rejoin the electorate, if they become convinced that the Democratic Party will truly represent them instead of being the other Corporate Party. Howard Dean as the next Chairman of the national Democratic Party is a great first step. Dean listens to the local Democratic Party leaders and activists. The Washington clique  needs to follow his lead and show some courage in advancing our Democratic convictions. Forget compromising with the Corporate Bush Republicans because their agenda is ruining the American Dream.

http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com. Mail: 234 Johnstown Road, Elkton, Maryland 21921. Phone: 443-907-2367. Email: midsouthcm@aol.com .

What Dubya Isn't Telling Us About His Budget

February 8, 2005
by David Espo

President Bush gave faint praise Monday to the deficit-cutting measures contained in his own budget. Not surprisingly, congressional Democrats were far less polite.

No wonder on both counts, on a political issue that has often seemed more imagined than real.

Bush's claim to cut government red ink in half over five years omits the cost of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq beyond Sept. 30. It reckons, implausibly, that neither he nor the Republicans who control Congress will want new tax cuts in future years.

It underestimates by many billions the money needed for Social Security overhaul. And it assumes that the GOP-controlled Congress will send veterans a new $2.1 billion bill for health care through 2010.

It also assumes that lawmakers will acquire discipline when it comes to hometown projects.

If the numbers in Bush's glossy budget book weren't clear enough about administration goals, the president personally supplied the emphasis.

"Our priorities are winning the war on terror, protecting our homeland, growing our economy," said the chief executive who seeks increased spending on defense and homeland security, and wants previously enacted tax cuts made permanent.

Next, he told reporters at the White House, the budget "focuses on results. ... It's a budget that reduces and eliminates redundancy." That's code for merging some programs, eliminating others and squeezing domestic programs generally.

Finally, Bush got to the deficit, making it fifth in line in his prepared recitation.

"People on both sides of the aisle have called upon the administration to submit a budget that helps meet our obligations of - our goal of reducing the deficit in half over a 5-year period, and this budget does just that," he said.

If the targets are met, the budget book says, the remaining deficit will be "lower than all but seven of the last 25 years."

As a rousing endorsement, that might rate a 25 on a scale of 1 down to 25.

Democrats reacted like they had been handed a club to use against a president who just won re-election and led the GOP to bigger congressional majorities.

Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the senior Democrat on the Budget Committee, said deficits will be far greater than the administration estimates. If Bush's plans were adopted, he forecast ominously, "deficits and debt would continue to explode at an unsustainable rate and the nation's long-term economic security would be threatened."

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the second ranking Democrat in the House, added, "In four short years, this administration has turned record budget surpluses into deficits as far as the eye can see."

Yes, and won four more years in office, after an election run on personal character and issues ranging from the war in Iraq to the threat of terrorist attack and the economy. All of those are presumably more tangible to voters than the deficit.

"It's a theoretical concept as opposed to a clearcut issue," said David Winston, a Republican pollster.

He also suggested deficits were a political stalking horse.

"Democrats are interested in the deficit not because of the deficit but because they want to stop Republican tax cuts. And Republicans are focused on the deficit not because they're focused on the deficit but because they want to stop Democratic spending," he said.

Independents care more than either Republicans or Democrats about deficits, he said, a concern that was reflected in Ross Perot's emergence in the 1990s.

Recent political history suggests that deficits don't matter as much as economic vitality and tax cuts.

President Reagan came into office pledging to balance the budget, then emphasized tax cuts and a defense buildup instead. The economy strong, he won a second term on a 49-state landslide.

The current president's father agreed with Democrats to raise taxes to curb deficits. That angered conservatives, and he lost the White House in a year in which the economy was still soft.

President Clinton and congressional Democrats pushed through a deficit-cutting plan in 1993 that leaned heavily on higher taxes - and they lost control of the House and Senate the following year for their trouble.

House Republicans swept into office determined to cut taxes while placing the budget on a path toward balance. They went after Medicare, the government shut down, and Clinton was re-elected amid economic prosperity.

Both parties claimed credit when the budget was balanced for four years during Clinton's second term. In the years since, congressional Republicans have cited deficits as the reason to curb government spending, hoping to appeal to conservatives.

Except when the spending hits closest to home.

As Bush sent Congress a budget of restraint during the day, Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., claimed credit for securing $7 million to begin construction of a new, permanent bridge downstream of Folsom Dam.

"The funding is in addition to the $6 million that Doolittle secured over the last two years," the statement says.

David Espo is AP's chief congressional correspondent.

Powerful Republicans Worry About Bush Budget Cuts

February 8, 2005
by Anna Willard

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's proposed spending cuts drew worried criticism on Tuesday from the Republican heads of congressional budget committees, and key party members said his priorities were not binding.

But the lawmakers expressed a shared goal of austerity as Bush said they must make "difficult choices" to rein in the budget deficit, which has surged to record levels during a presidency that inherited a surplus.

A top White House official said Bush was prepared to veto spending bills for the first time if necessary.

Bush sent Congress a $2.57 trillion budget plan for the 2006 fiscal year on Monday which proposes sweeping cuts across the budget and eliminates or reduces 150 programs. The Republican-controlled Congress is supposed to pass its own version by April 15, which will set spending limits for the year.

"The Congress doesn't have to stick to these (White House) priorities," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican.

"There are some programs in there I have heartburn about."

House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, an Iowa Republican, warned his panel not to refuse spending cuts unless they could come up with alternative savings.

"Put up or shut up," he said. "You've got to come forward with a proposal. It's not good enough to just complain."

But Nussle admitted he was worried about proposed farm-aid cuts which could affect Iowa, a farming state where he may run for governor. "I don't like some of the cuts I've seen in the agricultural budget," he said.

Both chairmen, who are charged with setting the spending limits for Congress, said the key is to tackle automatic programs that do not require lawmakers' approval each year, such as Medicaid health care for the poor. Bush's budget already seeks $45 billion in Medicaid savings over 10 years.

These mandatory programs account for around 55 percent of the budget. They require legislation to change, and Nussle said he may use the budget procedure to instruct committees in charge of those programs to make changes.

Bush's budget forecasts a record $427 billion deficit for 2005 including war costs. For 2006 he expects a deficit of $390 billion, but that is without any spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. The figures compare to a $236 billion surplus in 2000.

Democrats say Bush's tax cuts caused the deficit. Republicans blame the wars and the recession.

LONG LIST OF COMPLAINTS

Other important Republicans also lined up to complain about the new budget proposal.

Maine Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, asked if she had problems with Bush's budget, said "How long do you have?" She was one of four Republicans who refused to agree to a budget last year over deficit concerns.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican, said farm-aid cuts were "wrong."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, urged lawmakers to take time to digest the budget and not to "lock down" their positions.

But he also distinguished Congress' budget priorities from Bush's. "The president's priorities are reflected in that budget. You will see the reflection of the Senate's priorities and the House over the next several weeks," he said.

Bush dispatched Treasury Secretary John Snow and White House budget director Josh Bolten to Capitol Hill to defend the spending cuts.

Bolten said Bush would veto spending bills if needed.

Despite similar rhetoric from some Republicans last year, Congress stuck to Bush's requested $822 billion limit for the spending that needs congressional approval. Bush wants a limit of $840 billion this year.

Democrats are also furious with Bush's budget plans. They say it stints on funding for crucial programs that help the poor, that it shows a misleading reduction in the deficit because it leaves out war spending and the cost of Bush's plan to reform Social Security and extend tax cuts.

"It will put us on a path of endless deficits and a Mount Everest on mountainous debt," said South Carolina Democrat John Spratt.

(Additional reporting by Donna Smith)

Going for broke

President Bush's travesty of a budget manages to simultaneously bash the poor while making the rich feel good about their wealth

February 8, 2005
by William Keegan
The Guardian

None of the movers and shakers at the World Economic Forum in Davos thought the Bush administration was serious about cutting the budget deficit, and they appear to have been right.

The President's budget proposal, published yesterday, is a travesty of a budget - even before an irate Congress gets its hands on it. The proposed cuts in spending are confined to non-security discretionary outlays - that part of total spending which comprises a mere 20 per cent of the total. And the most prominent victims are the urban poor, who will suffer from cuts in health, education, housing and other welfare programmes, while the first-term tax cuts for the rich are made permanent.

True, there are proposals for cutting agricultural subsidies, which will be approved by most economists other than those employed by the agricultural lobby, but the broad thrust of the budget is to bash the poor while making the rich feel good about their wealth. And, in the immortal words of the Miami columnist Dave Barry ( who will be sorely missed on this side of the Atlantic too, if he really is about to retire ), "I am not making this up".

Consider: as I took the train down the mountain slopes of Davos, I was joined (in the sense that they took the three unoccupied seats in my compartment) by a prominent US economist and two of his colleagues. Among the great man's ex cathedra statements, which I could not help listening to, was his view that the degree to which the Bush administration had proved to be a welfare programme for the already rich was obscene, but it did not seem to be a subject people talked about. In the land that gave us The Great Gatsby, it was simply accepted that these people had a right to their permanent tax cuts.

According to the Financial Times, some two-thirds of the deterioration in US public finances since 2001 is accounted for by 'revenue shortfalls', ie tax cuts . Yet all the emphasis in the budget proposals is on cutting spending - wounding for the poor, but not so significant overall as to make more than a $15bn (£8bn) dent in the $400bn (£215bn) deficit between this year and next.

The proposed 'halving' of the deficit is over a four-year period, and all the usual Congressional wrangling is still to come. So if the financial markets are really concerned about the way the US finances its phenomenal appetite for imports - which exceed exports by 50 per cent via a massive aid programme from Asian central banks - then their initially relaxed view of the Bush budget will surely not last long.

Or will it? The overwhelming consensus at Davos was that there was a huge crisis in the making. The only question was when it would hit. One leading international economist said: "There is certainly going to be an explosion sometime, when people lose complete confidence in the dollar. It may be in 10 months, but it may be in 10 years. "