Do you hate Bush and why? -- LiveWire Teen Forums

Just one year ago, the Nation�s economy was still emerging from the effects of multiple shocks. Last year�s Budget estimated a deficit of 4.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2004, or $521 billion. Private and other forecasters had similar deficit expectations. Largely because economic growth generated stronger revenues than originally estimated, and because the Congress adhered to the spending restraint called for in the President�s Budget, the 2004 deficit came in $109 billion lower than expected, at $412 billion, or 3.6 percent of GDP.
The 2005 Budget, while providing needed increases for overall homeland security and defense spending, still held overall discretionary spending growth to 4 percent for the second year in a row. Non-security discretionary spending growth declined for the fourth year in a row, down from a high of 15 percent in the final budget year of the prior Administration to about one percent in 2005.
The President�s 2006 Budget demonstrates even greater restraint: it is the first Budget to propose a cut in non-security discretionary spending since the Reagan Administration. Even with significant increases in security-related spending, the 2006 Budget holds overall discretionary spending to 2.1 percent growth, which is just below the projected rate of inflation. In other words, after providing substantial increases for protecting America at home and abroad, overall discretionary spending will still be reduced in real terms.
In the area of non-defense discretionary spending, this Budget proposes more than 150 program reductions and eliminations, saving a total of about $20 billion dollars in 2006 alone. Discretionary spending is subject to the annual appropriations process and is therefore easier to control because legislation must generally be enacted each year for programs to continue.

Spending on mandatory programs is more difficult to restrain because these programs generally operate based on formulas that are not subject to annual review. Consequently, when these programs grow faster than originally envisioned, which is often the case, there is no automatic mechanism to impose restraint. The only way to constrain the growth of mandatory spending is by enacting new laws that change the rules governing spending. The 2006 Budget proposes significant reforms in mandatory programs, saving a total of $137 billion over a 10-year period.

[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/outlook.html[/url]

-------
When a man leaves his darkness, he follows the Son.

797 users online 186567 members 1359 active today Advertise Here