Bush to cut education once again

Just as President Bush proposed last year, he will cut a number of education programs in 2008.  In all, education would receive an 8% cut -- more than $4.9 billion in program reductions.

So what in education would be cut?  Among the most notable, Bush wants to reduce subsidies for financial institutions that lend money to students.  Stocks like Sallie Mae fell sharply today as a result.  One analyst put it bluntly:

The administration "may be doing the equivalent ofthrowing the student loan industry under the bus.''

However, the Pentagon budget will increase by 62% this year.  Maybe Dwight Eisenhower had every reason to be worried about the size and scope of the military industrial complex.  It prevents us from making the education of our youth the number one priority.

Comments

[Robt]

let me get this straight,

The Decider and Republicans can't see throwing one more dime (taxpayers money)at Americas future and public education. Because they feel it is a lost cause.

Yet they will borrow the U.S.A/ into subservatude to China to toss as much moola as they can at the Iraq occupation and their education and health care?

I think people need to start speaking with their representatives eye to eye (in person) much more often..........................

[ted K]

Here we go again.

Todd, at least be honest with your damned stories.
In the link you have right after your 8% "cut" in education B.S. piece, the very first sentence reads:

The Bush administration on Monday sought a $4.9 billion, or 8 percent, cut in education, training, employment and social services grants BUT ESTIMATED THAT OVERALL OUTLAYS TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WOULD RISE SLIGHTLY.

How is that an 8% cut?

If you are going to be truthful say an 8% cut in the INCREASE in spending on education.

When is the last time you recall government actually cutting and decreasing the funding to a program from one year to the next?

You (and I for that matter) want a balanced budget, you have to start cutting program % increases..and damnit, outright spend less on programs.

But you know what? The government is full of whores, both sides.
The government never wants to do with less. They will raise your taxes and tell you to do with less, but NOT THEM.

If you get a Dem in the White House and still have the senate and congress, just wait to see how much more spending government does.

Don't think I am not mad at my side for spending like drunken sailors either.

[Administrator: Todd]

lol Ted, it's right there in the sentence. The Bush Administration cut $8 billion out of certain programs. Secondly, in the next part if the sentence, the rise in outlays for state and local governments is mainly for No Child Left Behind, which the Bush Administration has under-funded by at least $8 billion ever since No Child was enacted.

In other words, Bush is taking $8 billion out of education services and re-embersing states for giving them an un-funded mandate in No Child Left Behind. So yes, it is an overall cut in services for children.

Ted, I genuinely believe that you and I have something to agree on about deficit reduction. The disagreement is over how you do it. John Edwards wants to raise taxes in order to pay for health care. I personally don't like that idea, and I think you would agree as well. But what I don't like even more is President Bush increasing the Pentagon budget by 62%. 62%!!!! What would you rather have cut: 10 extra stealth bombers, or education services for our children? Just look at some of the stuff inside the Pentagon budget. Some of it is necessary. Most of it isn't.

[ted K]

Again, I tell you it is a DECEASE (read cut) in the Increased spending.

It is the exact same thing as when Repubs "cut" the lunch money program, when they did no such thing. They cut the increased percentage, but it was still an increase.

I too worry about anyone trying to enact some sort of "Hillary care." Look how bloated the perscription drug plan for seniors is turning out to be.
What a WASTE of money that is.

And since it is an entitlement now, of course it can't be touched.

So, let me get this straight, you progressive libs support our troops how.. with "lip service?"

The only actual CUT I can recall in any program of worth was when Clinton cut the spending for Defense.
...but then you Dems "support'' the troops.

Todd, to balance the budget there are going to have to be some sacrifices made somewhere.. and I mean actual CUTS or at least FREEZES in spending growth.

Appparently when my party owns House, Senate and White House it isn't going to be done. The Dems haven't actually had a fiscal minded President since Kennedy (Clinton's hand was forced by The Contract with America), so the only way we are gonna get it done is with a split Executive and Legislative branch.

Really makes me sick.

Throwing more money at a failing education system isn't the answer.
Lopping off the Department of Education would be a start.

What the hell does Washington know about what is going on in California crappy schools?

Getting government involved in health care is even scarier.

[George]

Why dont you "sacrifice" your failed war, dumb ass?

[Administrator: Todd]

Oh, I know Ted, saving money on health care is a scary thing. I guess we shouldn't move to a single payer system then.

If you want to talk about freezes in spending, then like I was before, look no further than the Pentagon budget. lol Cutting Pentagon spending on the military industrial complex is not anti-troops. That's absurd.

lol Lastly, how can you say that John F. Kennedy was the last fiscally minded Democratic president? Bill Clinton balanced the budget. No Republican has balanced the budget since Nixon.

[ted K]

Ah, George, always a pleasure hearing from you.
You are going to make some lucky woman a very good ex-husband someday.

I am all for the government spending on military to keep the WORLD'S LONE SUPERPOWER stocked and able to do the Feds #1 job.

Keep our country safe.

Again, Bill Clinton only passed the contract with America bills because Newt kept forcing the issue.
Thus the republicans passed the budget reform act and Clinton signed them.

So, again, JFK was your last fiscally responsible man.

Although Clinton did cut spending to the military.
I guess he did actaully cut something, albeit the wrong program.

You guys seriously want the government....THE GOVERNMENT involved in health care?

Using HSA's was a very good start to helping with people getting their own private insurance and keeping $$ in an invested account that could be used as an IRA when they get older.

By the way, do you know who is responsible for the creation of HMOs?

Ted Kennedy (unfortunate first name and last innitial if I must say.) It was that hacks brainchild and now he is one of the champions against them.

Bravo libs....Bravo.

[ted K]

Ah, George, always a pleasure hearing from you.
You are going to make some lucky woman a very good ex-husband someday.

I am all for the government spending on military to keep the WORLD'S LONE SUPERPOWER stocked and able to do the Feds #1 job.

Keep our country safe.

Again, Bill Clinton only passed the contract with America bills because Newt kept forcing the issue.
Thus the republicans passed the budget reform act and Clinton signed them.

So, again, JFK was your last fiscally responsible man.

Although Clinton did cut spending to the military.
I guess he did actaully cut something, albeit the wrong program.

You guys seriously want the government....THE GOVERNMENT involved in health care?

Using HSA's was a very good start to helping with people getting their own private insurance and keeping $$ in an invested account that could be used as an IRA when they get older.

By the way, do you know who is responsible for the creation of HMOs?

Ted Kennedy (unfortunate first name and last innitial if I must say.) It was that hacks brainchild and now he is one of the champions against them.

Bravo libs....Bravo.

[ted K]

sorry for the double post.

[Administrator: Todd]

lol Ted, The Budget Reform Act was not what led to surpluses. It was the Deficit Reduction Act before Republicans took Congress. Not ONE Republican voted for it, and it passed on a razor-thin margin.

Ted, I really think you should read some of the crap that is in that Pentagon budget. Our military is so far-advanced that we could kick the crap out of China and Russia in our sleep. We are decades ahead of them in technology. Even our non-stealth bombers could take their airforce if they engaged us. A lot of this is billions of dollars worth of needless expenditures.

Lastly, regarding health care, we already have the government involved to an extent -- and it's under a GOP presidency. So as much as you want complete control for the GOP donors in the pharmaceutical industry, we will never have it...even under a Republican.

[doomindex]

It's worse than that, the Bush Administration wants to completely neuter the federal loans program to make it more "market-driven." More at my blog: http://doomindex.wordpress.com

Loans are often the only thing keeping college student and GRADUATE STUDENTS in school. I know people, brilliant people, who gave up on graduate school because the costs were just too high after 4 years of unsubsidized loans.

It's not small fact that we need an educated populace to continue the country's dominance in technology, culture, and society.

And as President Eisenhower said back in 1953:

"This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. "

And about all you arm-chair generals, look at Iraq. All of our advanced doo-hickey's can't do squat without a committed public, a large reserve of highly trained soldiers, and the leadership to see conflicts through. Wars tomorrow will not be won through force of arms alone.