There’s one good thing about Bush’s new budget

By Robert Horenstein

Our synagogue’s finance committee meeting is just wrapping up and my cousin Marty has a look of satisfaction on his face.

“Looks like we’re going to make it through the rest of the year without running a deficit,” he says as we head to the parking lot.

“Yeah, maybe President Bush could learn a thing or two from us, huh, Marty?” I say. “What did all the analysts project the deficit from his proposed 2009 budget would be? Four hundred billion dollars, which makes, what, seven straight years of deficits under W?”

“Surely you’re not going to compare running a synagogue to running the federal government,” Marty replies. “Don’t you understand why the president has no choice but to operate with a deficit in the short term?”

“Because when he leaves office he wants to be able to claim that at least there’s one sector of the economy—the national debt—that’s showing tremendous growth?” I say.

“Don’t be so dense,” Marty snaps. “I’m quite sure you’re aware that protecting our homeland and our citizens is enormously expensive. And besides, if you saw his press conference, you’d know that he assured the American people that under his plan, the federal budget will be balanced by 2012.”

“Marty, I don’t think even the great illusionist David Copperfield could make the Bush deficits disappear by 2012,” I say. “In fact, the only reason the projected deficit isn’t the largest in history is because the budget doesn’t include any funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after the first four months of the fiscal year.”

“You’re not actually suggesting that President Bush doesn’t support our troops, are you?” Marty asks. “You and your liberal colleagues in the organized Jewish community may disapprove of his budget, but you can’t deny his commitment to national security. These are perilous times, and in his budget the president made clear what our highest priorities should be: strengthening our armed forces and securing our borders.”

“Let me see if I’ve got this straight,” I say. “We need to spend $700 million to keep building a fence along the border with Mexico because of the threat to our nation’s security from penniless migrants sneaking across the Rio Grande in search of a better life. On the other hand, we’re going to drastically reduce funding for airport and seaport security, police and firefighters—and the American people are supposed to feel safer?”

“If we don’t make it a top priority to secure our borders more funding for police and firefighters will hardly matter,” Marty says.

“I see,” I reply. “And since the border fence isn’t anywhere near completion, I suppose there wouldn’t be any point in providing assistance to the poor either. I mean, if it’s going to take some time before we can make them safe, the least we can do is keep them destitute so as to be preoccupied with their financial problems instead of their personal security. Or is there some other reason I’m missing to explain the deep cuts in healthcare, housing and senior programs in the Bush budget?”

“I’ve always said a president demonstrates leadership by making tough choices,” Marty replies.

“Tough choices?” I repeat. “Marty, did it ever occur to you that when it comes to the programs that fulfill our responsibility to the widow and the orphan—Medicare and Medicaid, Head Start, Children’s Health Insurance, Section 202 housing—President Bush isn’t making any choices? That he intends to cut all of them?”

“At some point, there’s got to be some discipline on the spending side,” Marty says. “The president is trying to eliminate all those ineffective and wasteful programs that the tax-and-spend Democratic Congress blindly supports. His budget takes steps to address entitlements and keeps non-defense discretionary funding at reasonable levels while at the same time making the tax cuts—the hallmark of his administration—permanent.”

“Cutbacks in vital programs to the poor, tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of Americans,” I summarize. “In other words, the president still subscribes to the Robin-Hood-in-reverse theory of budgeting. You’d think that with a $3.1 trillion budget—that’s 3.1 followed by ELEVEN zeroes—there must be a few bucks somewhere to help working poor single mothers, hungry children and disabled seniors.”

“Rather than railing against the cuts, you’d be better served finding areas of common ground with the president,” Marty says. “For example, how about the fact that the administration e-mailed the 50-page budget to Congress and the media in order to save trees? That should please the left. But are the environmentalists even taking note of what he’s done that no other president ever did?”

“Let’s see,” I reply. “I believe his budget cuts funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by $330 million, weakening critical clean-air and clean-water programs. There’s also an assumption of several billion in revenue from oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Trust me, Marty, the environmentalists are definitely taking note of what Mr. Bush has been doing.”

“If you could just be objective for one minute, surely there must be something favorable you could say about his budget,” Marty insists.

“I didn’t mean to imply that there isn’t anything positive to say about the president’s budget because there definitely is,” I say. “It’s his LAST!”

Robert Horenstein is the staff director of the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland Community Relations Committee.