Budgets, budgets everywhere

We are entering budget season at work, so it really does feel like the dang budgets are inescapable. Nevertheless, here's some stuff about the federal budget.

First of all, did you know we are running deficits? Well, ok, maybe we all do know that, but $113 billion last month? (You notice this came from Canadians. I haven't seen a word about it in the American press so far.) (Adding on to say that it did turn up later in the day a couple of places.)

And then there's this one, which I'm posting in its entirety since it's (a) relatively short, (b) came in an e-mail and (c) presumably isn't posted anywhere easily accessible:

The Budget Battles Begin in Washington

By JOSEPH SCHUMAN
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE

Congress's first formal response to President Bush's budget proposals offers to enact much of what he wants and some of what he doesn't – with Senate Republicans rebelling against some tax-cutting plans.

Republican leaders in the House and Senate introduced budget resolutions for the coming fiscal year that would cut billions of dollars in spending for veterans, agriculture, education and health-care programs while making room for as much as $106 billion in tax reductions over the next five years, the Washington Post reports. And for the first time since 1997, the budgets they outline would slow the growth of entitlement programs, including the Medicaid health-care program for the poor, student loans, and veteran health programs. The House plan seeks $69 billion in entitlement savings over five years, more than twice what the president requested, while the Senate would slash $32 billion. Discretionary spending targeted for cuts by the House would include the international-affairs budget, as well as programs for the environment, farming, housing, transportation and education. The Senate approach is more modest, the Post says, but as The Wall Street Journal notes, budget resolutions are typically more fiscal-planning documents than real law. Committees will write the actual legislation in the coming months.

The competing blueprints rolled out by House and Senate Republicans share Mr. Bush's goal of cutting last year's $412 billion deficit in half, and both represent what the Journal calls "a fundamental retrenchment for the government and mark the most ambitious effort in at least eight years to address the growth in benefit programs." Their biggest divergence is over tax cuts. Mr. Bush's plans to extend his tax cuts over the next five years ran into significant resistance in the Senate, where Republican leaders would undo more than a quarter of the cuts Mr. Bush requested, the New York Times reports.

Uneasy about the potential impact on the ballooning federal deficit, the Senate Republicans called for just $70.2 billion in tax cuts in that time, as opposed to the $100 billion sought by the White House. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg suggested reductions on capital-gains and dividend taxes would be extended, the Times says. The proposal to scale back the tax cuts comes at a time when Senate Republicans are "also feeling queasy" about White House plans for Social Security, the Times notes, adding that even the more modest tax cuts weren't enough to mollify some Republican moderates.

I'm glad to know that somebody is worried about the deficit, since our esteemed President doesn't seem to care.