(Long Island, NY) According to Whitehouse.gov, “When President Bush’s proposal is fully in place, the typical family with two children will receive at least $1,600 in tax relief. This is real and practical help.”
There is no doubt that the extra savings are welcome. Everybody needs more money. Unfortunately, it’s hard to count your money and ask what the end result of being given that extra money might be. In fact, if you are struggling to pay your bills, you really don’t care. That is what the Bush administration is hoping will happen.
Too cynical? Perhaps, after all, on the same page at www.whitehouse.gov, President Bush is quoted talking about making the tax system work better for all Americans. “These are the basic ideas that guide my tax policy: lower income taxes for all, with the greatest help for those most in need.” The President stated. According to the website, Bush goes further. “Everyone who pays income taxes benefits — while the highest percentage tax cuts go to the lowest income Americans,” he said. “I believe this is a formula for continuing the prosperity we’ve enjoyed, but also expanding it in ways we have yet to discover. It is an economics of inclusion. It is the agenda of a government that knows its limits and shows its heart.”
Remember those words as you read news stories about how the President’s proposed cuts in Medicare would cost state hospitals hundreds of millions of dollars. Bush’s monetary policies seem to shuffle money from one side of the ledger to another, back and forth until you can’t tell where the money is going or where it went. On the streets this kind of scam is called the shell game. In government, it’s called the tax rebate. Can ANYONE explain how the governmental money game works in reality? For We the People, it’s impossible to figure out, but it looks completely suspect—especially in light of recent budget announcements concerning military spending.
It’s not that we shouldn’t have lower taxes, or enforce more efficient tax collection from large industries; we should definitely have both of these. What we should also be getting is a sane, common sense fiscal policies. Bush’s proposed cuts in Medicare—a vital resource for so many older Americans—should be held side by side and examined with Bush’s defense spending budget, sent to congress on February 7th.
In the 2006 Defense Budget, the U.S. Army is listed as having a thirteen billion dollar baseline budget. Sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? Especially when only around nine and a half billion is earmarked for Homeland Defense. Has anyone else made the assumption that the war on terror is more important to the policy makers than Homeland Defense? They will, of course, spin-doctor these figures until you can’t think straight, but I encourage anyone who isn’t sure to simply examine the numbers. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are getting around nine billion in additional funds over several years for chemical warfare defense equipment and training. Homeland Defense is stuck with the original nine billion. Still wondering what is more important to the White House?
Why is the Army getting billions while our healthcare system (which are right here at home, in our own back yard) gets the short shrift? Forget about the Army for a moment and consider the entire Department of Defense, of which the United States Army makes up a part. President Bush’s DoD budget for 2006 is over four hundred billion dollars.
That is no misprint. The actual figure is $419.3 billion dollars. Remember that a good chunk of that money is going to fund the war in Iraq and anti-terror operations in Afghanistan. Never mind that our airports are still easy targets, that a rental van packed with explosives won’t be detected until it blows up in front of your favorite landmark, or that any maniac with a gun can still climb up into a bell tower and just start shooting. Can we do anything in terms of prevention? Improvements? Deterrence?
We really ought to take some more of that four hundred billion dollars and invest it in some major improvements right here at home, shouldn’t we? Anyone who has been on the Long Island Railroad in the middle of a snowstorm knows that. We don’t need to resort to isolationism to do this, in spite of what the spin-doctors accuse people of wanting when these issues are brought up. An adjustment in priorities is needed. How many military programs are necessary to keep the nation safe? Are the bombs, bullets and soldiers really worth that staggering amount? If we can justify spending that sort of money or war machines, America really ought to be finding the money to invest in healthcare, too.
