Pearlstein: Federal Budget
525662
Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein discusses the debate over the federal budget.
702097
SEEING RED: The government deficit is so big that the just-passed &#36;388 billion bill financing almost every federal agency in 2005 could be eliminated and there would still be red ink.
310057
citanon writes &quot; The Washington Post reports that House Majority Leader Tom Delay has delivered, via the omnibus spending bill passed Nov. 20, the President&#39;s full budgetary request of $16.2 billion dollars
336086
President Bushâs $3.1 trillion budget would increase military spending and curb the growth of Medicare and Medicaid but raise the federal deficit by nearly $250 billion.
135595
A guide to the new Bush budget's winners and losers
258451
Budgets are tight in Washington and in Boston. President Bush's proposed $2.57 trillion budget calls for only a 3.6 percent increase in spending. Governor Romney's $23.2 billion budget plan envisions only a 2.4 percent spending rise.
406834
In his new budget, the president has requested money for thousands of items similar to the pet projects of Congress.
489032
As you may have heard, the latest White House proposal for the federal budget amounts to a bazillion gazillion dollars, give or take a jillion. The great news is that, according to White House calculations, the budget deficit has been cut in half, a feat achieved primarily by running up the deficit...
508577
TAMPA -- The numbers make Joseph Farrell's head swim. Billions and trillions of dollars, numbers too immense to comprehend. But the central message, delivered by a band of Washington budget experts traveling the country to raise an alarm about the nation's financial picture, hits him like a whack...
266120
Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein will be online to discuss his latest column, which examines ways to improve quality and control costs in the health care system.
277961
President Bush today unveiled a tough-minded, $3 trillion budget proposal for fiscal 2009 that would slice $14.2 billion from the growth of federal health-care programs, eliminate scores of programs and virtually freeze domestic spending -- but would still record a $407 billion budget deficit.
570036
Facts and figures on spending in the presidential race:
8713
Before I begin this week's missive, let me just say this: I'm glad to see that the FBI is turning to off-the-shelf software to monitor our conversations rather than spending more money on a proprietary solution. As a taxpayer, I appreciate that.
49154
At their national convention, Republicans were short on specifics on how to pay for an economic agenda in a second Bush administration. One reason is that President Bush could end up having to back a tax increase, just as his father did.
317450
Yesterday's piece on health care and the presidential election got a great response, and some of it from Republicans, using the slogans and logic I hoped they wouldn't. But that's okay, it helps me focus my rhetoric on the precise point of disagreement, and hopefully by illuminating it, I can either convince some of the Republicans to come over to my side, or help eliminate some of the confusion on both sides. Or maybe it'll just keep the argument from slopping over into all kinds of irrelevant issues. The basic Republican argument goes like this. Why should I pay for the health needs of people who are so irresponsible as to not have health insurance.  If I got it wrong, please set me straight. Now I'd like to answer this, very carefully. The Democrats aren't proposing that you should pay for the uninsured. Key point. They either agree with you, or know that they're not going to get their proposal passed unless they take this into account. The Obama plan says you don't get care unless you have insurance. His proposal aims to get a lot more people insured. Clinton goes one step further, by requiring everyone to have health insurance.  Also, you already pay for the health needs of the uninsured. Whether you or I like it, we don't look the other way when someone is in need. You may feel the system should work differently, but that's not responsive to the proposal the Democrats are making. The debate is how health care works for the non-indigent.  If you have property, a car, a house, or if your kids go to private school or college, or if you want to take a vacation, or have a baby, or exercise between jobs, getting sick without insurance is a sure way to go from being middle class to being poor, quickly. This is why we have health insurance, to smoothe out the risk, to protect our family's lifestyle. It seems to me it's a good thing. It's the market solving a basic human need.  So this is what we should be discussing, how can we get insurance for all the people who want it, or should we require it for everyone -- this is the debate of 2008. This is what the Democrats are putting on the table, and what McCain, or whoever is the Republican nominee, will have to respond to, if we're going to have the respectful debate everyone is talking about having.  Why is this such a problem?  A lot of people, even healthy people without pre-existing conditions, can't get health insurance. And what if you have a pre-existing condition? Do you really think it's cool for the insurance industry to refuse them coverage? Why is that a good thing? I honestly don't get it. Consider the penalty for not having insurance. (See above.) So far the leaders of the Republican Party have managed to keep health care off the national agenda, but this year, it's there. If you doubt me, just ask a few people you know, and don't just ask poor people or Democrats, ask Republicans. Disease isn't a party issue, and while poor people tend to have poorer health, even well-off people need health care. And most people can't afford to pay for a catastrophic illness, and enough of them can't get health insurance to make this an important national issue. If you disagree with this, please let me know why. PS: Phil Windley asks where it stops. Should we provide free housing for the homeless? And what about free cable TV for people without cable TV? (He provides other examples.) No, this is only about health insurance. It's not about any of the other things mentioned in Phil's post.
99853
From fewer Head Start programs to outdated police gear, the proposed federal budget calls for spending cuts close to home.
79894
The $516 billion omnibus spending bill before Congress blends the budgets of 14 Cabinet departments with multiple policy changes. Highlights of the legislation include: