WASHINGTON - The Senate on Thursday narrowly approved the first cuts since 1997 to benefit programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and farm subsidies, giving Republicans a modest victory against ever-rising government spending.

The bill, passed by a 52-47 vote, makes mild cuts to the health care programs for the elderly, poor and disabled, but leaves the food stamp program untouched.

The measure also permits exploratory oil drilling in an Alaskan wilderness area. Five Republicans in the GOP-controlled Senate who oppose the drilling voted against the bill.

“The Senate took an important step forward in cutting the deficit,” President Bush said in a statement issued in Mar del Plata, Argentina, where he is attending a conference. “Congress needs to send me a spending-reduction package this year to keep us on track to cutting the deficit in half by 2009.”

More:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9917042/


Edited to increase font size.

I don't know if it's just me who thinks this, but healthcare program budgets are pathetic as it is.

Exploratory oil drilling in an Alaskan wilderness area? I don't agree with this either.

I'm sure someone will come along here soon and say that it's ok for the Feds to cut funding, because it should be the States that look after it.

"The bill, passed by a 52-47 vote, makes mild cuts to the health care programs for the elderly, poor and disabled, but leaves the food stamp program untouched. "

this is funny because the post yesterday was all talking about food stamp cuts being proposed in the house. so between the two legislative bodies, they're cutting everyhing. except, of course, "defense" spending.

yeah, that's a handy catchall, the states are supposed to be taking care of it. too bad the states are largely facing fiscal shortfalls already; apparently it's not as bad as in the last three or four years, when the states were largely bankrupt, but it's still impractical to except them to pick up the slack.

anyway, i think (or maybe just hope) the GOP is being politically tone-deaf on this. after katrina, particularly, i think it's getting harder for people to stomach this flagrant targeting of the poor, and telling them to pull themselves up by their boostraps. ugh.

All around a lose-lose, huh?  They cut spending, even though spending below inflation isn't really a cut, and people will complain.  But they do nothing and people say they're doing nothing to stop the out of control deficits.  Some people cannot be happy.

And it's really beyond time to drill ANWR.  That issue is pretty much dead, since the much more conservative house of representatives will vote for it too.

All around a lose-lose, huh?  They cut spending, even though spending below inflation isn't really a cut, is bad?  But they do nothing and people say they're doing nothing to stop the out of control deficits.  Some people cannot be happy.

And it's really beyond time to drill ANWR.  That issue is pretty much dead, since the much more conservative house of representatives will vote for it too.


Dude, you know we're going to bitch about it because A. the deficit was caused by bad decision making on the part of Bush and the GOP, and B. the necessary cuts aren't being applied in the areas they should be... like corporate welfare, for example.

Why should we be happy about budget cuts to needed social welfare programmes?

yeah, katrina showed the public infrastructure in this country is already pretty much decimated by our pouring all this money into defense and, as mcdonald says, corporate welfare. so what does the gop do? institute further cuts in social programs. seems to me like the country's on the verge of falling apart...

I notice that in the edited report, two lines were left out that I think is very important:

The long-planned budget bills would make the first cuts to mandatory programs since 1997.  These programs account for 55 percent of the budget and include Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies and student loan subsidies.

These are the first cuts in 8 years.  Now where are all the "cuts" we had in the past?  It seems to listen to some people that over the last 6 years, the programs have been totally gutted.

And we are talking about 55% of the budget.  Where are all those that scream that the Military is the largest part of the budget?  It seems that spending over half of the budget on welfare programs is a bit excessive.  And in reality, we are only talking about $6 billion a year.  That is hardly even "real money" to the Government.

Yup, compassionate conservatism at work, tax cuts for the rich (that's the compassion) and medicade, medicare, student loan etc cuts for the rest of us (thats the conservative part). 

  WONDERFUL

The long-planned budget bills would make the first cuts to mandatory programs since 1997.  These programs account for 55 percent of the budget and include Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies and student loan subsidies.

These are the first cuts in 8 years.  Now where are all the "cuts" we had in the past?  It seems to listen to some people that over the last 6 years, the programs have been totally gutted.

by interesting coincidence, 1997 is also the last year the minimum wage was increased.

And we are talking about 55% of the budget.  Where are all those that scream that the Military is the largest part of the budget?  It seems that spending over half of the budget on welfare programs is a bit excessive.  And in reality, we are only talking about $6 billion a year.  That is hardly even "real money" to the Government.


well, i'm not sure it's entirely valid to compare the military, on its own, with the entirety of domestic public-assistance spending. in terms of the discretionary budget, the military most definitely takes up the biggest slice, and that's actually a pretty recent development. i mean, we can go ahead and toss out medicare, welfare, and all these other programs designed to rescue people from utter despair and privation, but i'm not sure that the result would be a world anyone would be too keen to live in. (anyone looking forward to having the entire country look like new orleans? because that's what we're gonna get from such a policy.)

and, conversely, i'm not sure what that 500 billion poured into weaponry every year is accomplishing for us aside from generating more and more enemies. from where i'm sitting, it looks like we're exporting more and more death, and getting more and more death in return. great.

by interesting coincidence, 1997 is also the last year the minimum wage was increased.

well, i'm not sure it's entirely valid to compare the military, on its own, with the entirety of domestic public-assistance spending. in terms of the discretionary budget, the military most definitely takes up the biggest slice, and that's actually a pretty recent development. i mean, we can go ahead and toss out medicare, welfare, and all these other programs designed to rescue people from utter despair and privation, but i'm not sure that the result would be a world anyone would be too keen to live in. (anyone looking forward to having the entire country look like new orleans? because that's what we're gonna get from such a policy.)

and, conversely, i'm not sure what that 500 billion poured into weaponry every year is accomplishing for us aside from generating more and more enemies. from where i'm sitting, it looks like we're exporting more and more death, and getting more and more death in return. great.


This military spending (aside from what we spend on vets) is a perversion of John Maylard Kaens (sp?) theories on the role of gov't spending.  You get more economic bang from your buck building schools and hospitals than tanks and planes, according to Kaens.  But that spending is anathma to our conservative "friends" because it makes people "dependant" on the gov't, which, in a democratic republic I thought was suppose to be us.  There is a gap in that conservative logic which needs to be explored.

This military spending (aside from what we spend on vets) is a perversion of John Maylard Kaens (sp?) theories on the role of gov't spending.  You get more economic bang from your buck building schools and hospitals than tanks and planes, according to Kaens.  But that spending is anathma to our conservative "friends" because it makes people "dependant" on the gov't, which, in a democratic republic I thought was suppose to be us.  There is a gap in that conservative logic which needs to be explored.


i think there was this fascinating -- well, sickly fascinating -- transition that happened in this country in the wake of world war II, when reams and reams of military spending pulled the country out of an economic depression. after the axis surrendered i think there was this big realization, way up in the political decision-making apparatus, that either we continue to maintain a defense-centric economy with this prodigious growth -- but with the absence of a credible enemy this would be difficult to do -- or we would slip back into an tailspin akin to that of the great depression. reading about the truman administration (yes, so it was in fact under a democratic administration that this all began, i think) it seems that's when this took root. someone, i think it might have been one of the dulles brothers, basically told truman, look, in order to continue the economic benefits we enjoyed under the mass production of WWII we need to scare the tar out of the american people, and making the soviets into the bogeyman is the way to do it. hence, 50 years of the cold war, massive defense spending, and the creation of the "military industrial complex." (and here, again weirdly, it was i think a contrite republican, eisenhower, who warned about the MIC. that farewell speech of eisenhower's was one of america's greatest moments...)

how do we engineer an economy that's founded on something other than the busywork of maintaining a 500-billion dollar-a-year military apparatus? how do we channel these enormous resources and energies into some other, more productive direction? i think that's going to be the big question for us, collectively, to deal with in the next ten or twenty years.

and, conversely, i'm not sure what that 500 billion poured into weaponry every year is accomplishing for us aside from generating more and more enemies. from where i'm sitting, it looks like we're exporting more and more death, and getting more and more death in return. great.


I have talked about that in here before.  Out of the $500 billion dollar military budget, something like 10% actually goes to "weapons".  The vast majority goes to things like pay, dependent care, base construction and maintenance, training, transportation, medical care, and things like that.  The purchase of weapons is actually a rather small percentage.

I worked for several years as a Battalion Maintenance Chief.  Out of our annual budget for maintenance, vehicle and radio maintenance was much higher then the budget for weapons.  The highest amounts were for maintenance of the barracks and other buildings in our area of responsibility (4 barracks, 1 armory, 1 motor pool, 1 radio shed, 1 supply building, 1 clinic, 1/4 of the gym, 1/2 of the mess hall, etc).  In fact, I seem to remember that the annual budget for the mess hall was about 4 times higher then the annual budget for the Armory.  And that was in an Infantry Battalion.

I have talked about that in here before.  Out of the $500 billion dollar military budget, something like 10% actually goes to "weapons".  The vast majority goes to things like pay, dependent care, base construction and maintenance, training, transportation, medical care, and things like that.  The purchase of weapons is actually a rather small percentage.

I worked for several years as a Battalion Maintenance Chief.  Out of our annual budget for maintenance, vehicle and radio maintenance was much higher then the budget for weapons.  The highest amounts were for maintenance of the barracks and other buildings in our area of responsibility (4 barracks, 1 armory, 1 motor pool, 1 radio shed, 1 supply building, 1 clinic, 1/4 of the gym, 1/2 of the mess hall, etc).  In fact, I seem to remember that the annual budget for the mess hall was about 4 times higher then the annual budget for the Armory.  And that was in an Infantry Battalion.


and vehicle and radio maintenance, etc., aren't simply an ancillary part of spending on weapons? you have to make them, and then you have to maintain them. this seems like a technicality. obviously if you build the hardware then you have to pay for the people, parts and so forth to keep it operating. none of this changes the fact that the budget for military weaponry -- as a broad rubric, encompassing all necessary upkeep -- is literally more than something like the next 15 biggest military budgets worldwide, combined. so what threat are we marshalling against? are we expecting attack from outer space? i'm at a loss. that's why the explanation i provide above -- painting in broad terms, military spending as basically a gigantic welfare project designed to sustain the economy artificially -- is the only thing that really makes any sense.

in any case, a lot of people are working this problem, trying to get the human element, as far as possible, out of the equation. hence the smart weapons, the DARPA research into pilotless planes and robot infantry, unmanned satellites designed for space warfare and "full spectrum dominance"... the wave of the future appears to be in a vast, money-sucking artificial apparatus for making war, all of it completely depersonalized, operating by remote control. and all of it a massive sponge for sucking up taxpayer dollars and, ultimately, giving as little back in terms of wages as possible. that way it all flows upward, into the pockets of rich investors. pretty tidy game they're trying to get going, imo.

Here's another thing about Medicaid..Since I got my Medicaid from the County that I live in ORIGINALLY so that I could attend an adult medical daycare program...Atlantic County Intergenerational Services says I MUST attend a day program or get a home health aide to bathe me and dress me WHICH I CAN DO THANK YOU...to keep my Medicaid..and Medicaid now pays for all my medications until Medicare Part D in January 2006...The county worker was not happy when I told him I was moving on with my plans to attend college, he was like 'you can go to college a couple of days a week and go to DAY PROGRAM the other days!'...He was sooooo patronizing. He treated me like a total mental midget. I guess Medicaid here in NJ wants to keep folks like me 'forever dependent' well guess what I'd rather do Medicare D and pay a copay than deal with those fools. They seem to want to keep disabled people 'In their place' which s*cks!

Memo from "Brownie"

Let's send the poor children, the elderly, the convalescent, and the mentally ill to drill for oil in ANWR!  That way, we don't have to worry about funding them, and they don't have to worry about where their next check is coming from.  Have you considered all the recuperative, rehabilitative, skill-building, and educational opportunities to be had as an oil rigger in the arctic?  Besides, they'll get three hots and a cot, and private health insurance!  Solid win-win solution for us all!
:D

I'm sure someone will come along here soon and say that it's ok for the Feds to cut funding, because it should be the States that look after it.


Perhaps, and I think that's where you might agree. However, the US federal system is not like Australia... there are 50 vastly different states in this country, which means we need the federal government to set certain standards because it can be difficult to make sure all the states doing things acceptably. Without federal power, the Souh would still be segregated, for that too was once a states' rights issue.

Without federal power, the Sou(t)h would still be segregated, for that too was once a states' rights issue.

I believe 140 or so years ago so was slavery.

I honestly think Medicaid, in some states, wants to keep people 'dependent'...I posted before about how I was treated.

SOCIALIZED health care would solve the health-care problem here in the US, but h*ll will freeze over before our politicians let it become a reality!

I honestly think Medicaid, in some states, wants to keep people 'dependent'...I posted before about how I was treated.

SOCIALIZED health care would solve the health-care problem here in the US, but h*ll will freeze over before our politicians let it become a reality!


Socialized health care would be an unmitigated disaster.  If you want a great example of "Socialized Health Care", just look at the VA.

Would you let the people who run the VA provide health care for your family?

And what makes anything think that it would be any different?  Because of what a bunch of politicians think?

Socialized health care would be an unmitigated disaster.  If you want a great example of "Socialized Health Care", just look at the VA.

Would you let the people who run the VA provide health care for your family?

And what makes anything think that it would be any different?  Because of what a bunch of politicians think?


The VA system is a terrible example. It's totally underfunded, mainly because the government can get away with slashing that budget without it affecting society as a whole. A system encompassing everyone in the country would be watched closely by everyone, and paid for by everyone.

The health care system we have now is a disaster. It's only a matter of time before a single-payer system is implemented. In Canada, and in Western Europe especially, the national health services have been great successes, so much so that even hinting at their demise is political suicide. The systems must be coupled with government regulation of the industry. Price caps on pharmecuticals. People have to decide what does and what does not help, as far as improving quality of life. 

We've heard stories about waiting lists for knee replacements, but no one who is in need of immediate attention is ever made to wait on a list. I'd rather have waiting lists than over 40 million people completely ununsured and about 30-40 million more who are under-insured; that's nearly a third of the population.

It doesn't matter how the pros and cons weigh out to some people. Some people are just more comfortable when there's a great divide between the haves and the have nots. You just wait. Good jobs with adequate benfits are disappearing faster than the Amazon, and if it's a disaster people are looking for, they'll see one soon enough.

Can someone please explain to me why the measure to cut spending on "welfare" also included a clause to permit drilling in Alaska?  What do the 2 have to do with each other?


Two birds, dear.

Well, I realize that, but wouldn't you think bills with multiple clauses would have said clauses at least be related?


It's just a political way to play "If you want your idea to pass you'll also have to vote for mine. AKA: One hand washes the other.

Socialized health care would be an unmitigated disaster. 

Our current healthcare system is an unmitigated disaster.  I'd rather have unmitigated disaster with cheap prescription drugs. 

Anyway, what they're not telling you about the spending cuts is the next round of tax cuts for the rich will outstrip the spending cuts by 25 billion dollars.  It's like being robbed blind, only you can see it!
8)

Perhaps, and I think that's where you might agree. However, the US federal system is not like Australia... there are 50 vastly different states in this country, which means we need the federal government to set certain standards because it can be difficult to make sure all the states doing things acceptably. Without federal power, the Souh would still be segregated, for that too was once a states' rights issue.


No actually I think that in some areas like public health spending, it should be both a Federal and State responsibility. The Federal Government in Australia has been cutting back on the national Medicare budget for years, while at the same time spending millions of dollars on booklets "explaining" the proposed new Industrial Relations Bill, which they then pulped because the spin doctors wanted to change one word on the title page. Industrial relations is something that the Federal government should leave alone, but lately that's been their prime concern. That, and scaring the public about terrorism

I believe 140 or so years ago so was slavery.



I guess you missed the news last week about Rosa Parks.  She spurred the fight against
aparthied.  The apartheid was allowed on the basis of states rights and we all know how
wrong that was.

I guess you missed the news last week about Rosa Parks.  She spurred the fight against
aparthied.  The apartheid was allowed on the basis of states rights and we all know how
wrong that was.

A bit off topic, but on the BTW,
Speaking of Rosa Parks, I saw a book in Barnes & Noble last night that shall be my next book purchase
Sundown Towns by James W. Loewen.
This is a book about a horrifying aspect of American segregation that went on from the post-bellum era, all the way pastthe end of Jim Crow.  It is chilling to know that as late as 1965 some towns, rural and suburban, had the OK from the municipal government to post signs saying: "N***er Don't Let The Sun Set On You In This Town!"  Forty years is a long time in one human lifespan, but not long at all in history!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001715.html

A bit off topic, but on the BTW,
Speaking of Rosa Parks, I saw a book in Barnes & Noble last night that shall be my next book purchase
Sundown Towns by James W. Loewen.
This is a book about a horrifying aspect of American segregation that went on from the post-bellum era, all the way pastthe end of Jim Crow.  It is chilling to know that as late as 1965 some towns, rural and suburban, had the OK from the municipal government to post signs saying: "N***er Don't Let The Sun Set On You In This Town!"  Forty years is a long time in one human lifespan, but not long at all in history!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102001715.html


There are some who would like to believe that the attitudes changed when the signs came down.  Not true.

There are some who would like to believe that the attitudes changed when the signs came down.  Not true.

Oh, God, tell me about it!  There are little towns not so far from Amherst where cops make people of color feel most unwelcome indeed.  I used to live in one.  South Deerfield.  A Black friend of my housemate's was visiting, he decided to run down the block to Cumbie's to pick up a six-pack or something, and the cops set upon him.  The cops were like, "Well, he was running, and he looked like somebody we've been looking for."  Oh, so you just threw him against wall and frisked him, scared the living sh*t out of him!  He "looked like somebody" they've been "looking for" alright.  They look for those somebodies every night!
I could tell you other anectdotes, but they just depress me!
:(

The problem with this country is that we don't have "health care." We have "sick care" and that is a joke.


However, it looks like the House is going to scrap this bill since they took out the drilling in Alaska.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/10/house.budget/index.html?section=cnn_allpolitics


And what I find interesting about it, is that it was the GOP who is scrapping it.  :o




Cat

There are some who would like to believe that the attitudes changed when the signs came down.  Not true.
Yeah there is still 'unofficial apartheid' in parts of America...against not only blacks but the poor, disabled people('special services' school districts instead of local schools finding a workable and decent, non-stigmatizing way to include disabled kids)and the elderly(stick 'em in high-rise senior housing instead of helping them stay in the homes they already have). Yep 'NIMBY' is alive and well here in America.

The county worker that tried to get me to go back to medical day care was really PATRONIZING....Just because I have a mental illness does NOT mean I'm slow or dumb..yet this guy talked to me like I was a simpleton even after telling him I am college bound. What a horse's a$$ he is. Disabled does not equal 'dumb', 'sick', or a license to run a disabled person's life FOR them at all times. Yeah, Medicaid seemingly wants to keep people dependent on their program! Especially here in NJ!

The county worker that tried to get me to go back to medical day care was really PATRONIZING....Just because I have a mental illness does NOT mean I'm slow or dumb..yet this guy talked to me like I was a simpleton even after telling him I am college bound. What a horse's a$$ he is. Disabled does not equal 'dumb', 'sick', or a license to run a disabled person's life FOR them at all times. Yeah, Medicaid seemingly wants to keep people dependent on their program! Especially here in NJ!
I'd love to know WHY IN H*LL MEDICAID DOES THIS CRAP TO PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO WANT TO GO ON WITH THEIR LIVES AND BECOME SELF-SUPPORTING CITIZENS WHO DON'T NEED FEDERAL OR STATE AID TO HAVE A DECENT, HAPPY LIFE?
I've got a mind to tell Medicaid to f*ck off!

I'd love to know WHY IN H*LL MEDICAID DOES THIS CRAP TO PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO WANT TO GO ON WITH THEIR LIVES AND BECOME SELF-SUPPORTING CITIZENS WHO DON'T NEED FEDERAL OR STATE AID TO HAVE A DECENT, HAPPY LIFE?
I've got a mind to tell Medicaid to f*ck off!

Even citizens with no diagnosable mental or physical disabilities are having an ever harder time becoming self-supporting.  To cut a long story short, it's because we've let the extraction industries and finance gamblers run our country.  These are people who care for nothing but the short term financial gains of themselves and their bosses.  There is no room for human beings with human needs.  They're just a nuisance.
When will the average American wake up and see that the infrastructure of his country is rotting away, America is trillions of dollars in debt, the financial markets are mass delusion, and this thin layer of luxury built on cheap fossil fuels has no future?
It isn't human services that need to be cut.  It is the priorities of the military-petroleum complex.  Oh, and they will be cut.  It may not happen until the supply runs too low, but it will happen.  I mean, for crissakes, the really insane people are not those trying to avail themselves of mental health services, it's the people trying to run this godforsaken economy!

As I see it, the situation is this:  Bush cut taxes for the rich & super rich to starve the gov't for $$$, so now we need to cut spending to reduce the deficit Bush caused - remember we had a big surplus in 2000.  We COULD have payed down the national debt,and increased funding for medicare, medicaide, food stamps, student loans....

  BUT NOOOOO

cut taxes for the rich.  Hay, doesn't The Donald need another yatch, another town house, another Lamborgini?  Doesn't he deserve them?