Vote for Less Homeland Security
May 27, 2004
After having stiffed first-responders, Bush has now warned the Federal government that domestic programs may be cut further in FY 2006 if he is re-elected. Gene Cowan quotes the Washington Post:
The White House put government agencies on notice this month that if President Bush is reelected, his budget for 2006 may include spending cuts for virtually all agencies in charge of domestic programs, including education, homeland security and others that the president backed in this campaign year. [Emphasis mine.]
Why people insist that another Bush presidency is needed for domestic security is beyond me. We face a greater terrorist threat than we ever have, and Bush proposes cutting homeland security budgets?
The Bush administration says times are tough and the “public is ready to make sacrifices during the war on terror.” What are we sacrificing? The war on terror, seems like to me.
Oh, and support our troops why dontcha?
The Department of Veterans Affairs is scheduled to get a $519 million spending increase in 2005, to $29.7 billion, and a $910 million cut in 2006 that would bring its budget below the 2004 level.
The article goes on to detail how budget items increased for FY 2005 (ahead of the election cycle, natch) would be cut below current levels the year after election. Nice little bait and switch there.
Of course, none of this may actually happen:
J.T. Young, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget, said the memo, titled “Planning Guidance for the FY 2006 Budget,” is a routine “process documentâ€? to help agency officials begin establishing budget procedures for 2006. In no way should it be interpreted as a final policy decision, or even a planning document, he said. [ Emphasis mine. ]
Which is par for the course, I guess, for an administration that claims a document entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” is not a warning but a “historical document.”
Clearly Bush is courting the “not paying the slightest bit of attention” voter block.
Posted in Terrorism, What The...?!?
content rss
May 27th, 2004 at 6:00 am
Which is par for the course, I guess, for an administration that claims a document entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US� is not a warning but a “historical document.�
I’m guessing they just assumed everyone names things as ironically as they do. (As Al Franken said, for instance, “No Child Left Behind is the most ironically named piece of legislation since the 1942 Japanese Family Leave Act.”)