Monday, February 06, 2006

MSM: increases are "cuts", GOP wants drugs in schools, & more

President Bush sent Congress a $2.77 trillion budget plan Monday that would make his first-term tax cuts permanent while reducing government-funded programs to deal with exploding budget deficits. Almost a third of the 141 targeted programs are in education.

The plan also calls for an increase in spending on the war against terrorism and a squeeze on Medicare funds.
The budget blueprint sharply decreases funding for supporting the arts, vocational education, parent resource centers and drug-free schools, and instead puts a heavy emphasis on keeping the country strong militarily.
It doesn't "decrease funding for supporting the arts" nearly "sharply" enough. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that it is an appropriate federal role to confiscate the fruits of taxpayer labor to fund "Piss Christ", the Virgin Mary in elephant crap, or anything else that no one wants to see. When the GOP won the Congress back in 1994, one of their agenda items was (properly so) to zero-fund the National Endowment of the Arts. When some pot-smoking sacriligious unemployable miscreant can command $50k for "art" that no one in the private sector would pay him a red cent for, that is a travesty to the American taxpayer.

Also, notice the funding for "drug-free schools"? What are we to infer that school funding is currently subsidizing...drug-filled schools? I can see it now: campaign headlines that "the GOP wants your schools to have drugs!" Anywho, continuing:
Bush is also seeking savings by trimming the growth of spending in Medicare, the government’s giant health care program for the elderly and disabled, by $35.9 billion over five years.
“These are not cuts,” Bolten said of Bush’s Medicare plans. “These are modest reductions in the rate of growth.”
If they're not cuts, then why does the headline read "Bush’s $2.77 trillion proposal boosts defense spending, cuts other programs"? A cut is an actual reduction in spending, so giving Medicare more money each year (even if the percentage of the increase is not as big as the prior year) cannot by definition be a "cut", now can it? liberal media bias!