Feb. 08, 2006 - 19:56 MST

HERE AND THERE

Sometimes like gathering seashells on a beach or rocks in the mountains, sometimes things are somewhat related and other times rather puzzling. I noticed two things in the Rocky Mountain News today, one in the editorial section and another in the National Briefing. First is from the editorial section Quote:

BUSH BUDGET THE ULTIMATE ROSY SCENARIO

"The federal budget is necessarily based on a series of economic assumptions, and one of them is that nothing bad will happen."

"If President Bush's fiscal 2007 budget assumptions are right, we're in for pretty easy sailing, at least as far as the economy goes. Economic growth will be above 3 percent through 2011. The unemployment rate will be a steady and acceptable 5 percent. inflation will average 2.5 percent. And interest rates will also be flat, with the interest rate on a 10-year Treasury note getting no higher than 5.6 percent between now and 2011. A deficit cut in half by 2009."

"In contrast to some states, the federal government has no rainy-day fund -- yet wars, natural disaster and recessions are paid for out of pocket, typically with emergency spending bills."

"The Bush administration has nothing in its new budget specifically for the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afthanistan, or Hurricane Katrina. But budget officials say they expect to be asking Congress (down the road) for $50 billion for the former and $18 billion for the latter."

"Given these rosy assumptions and uncounted costs, you might ask how the public can trust the government's deficit projections. And the answer of course is that it can't."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And then the little item in the National Briefing, quoted in full here:

BUSH BUDGET ELIMINATES SOCIAL SECURITY STAPLE

"Washington -- President Bush's budget calls for elimination of a $255 lump-sum death payment that has been part of Social Security for more than 50 years. It also urges Congress to cut off monthly survivor benefits to 16- and 17-year old high school dropouts."

"If approved, the two proposals would save a combined $3.4 billion over the next decade."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dunno, budgets have never worked for me as planned, there is always something comes up that demands an output from empty pockets and the necessary scurry to raise funds someway or another.

I once had a boss who told me, "I don't want your assumptions (I had told him I assumed something) because if I believe you and act on that "I assume" that can make an ass out of u and me." So national budgetary assumptions can possibly make asses of all of us -- poor ones at that. Rich people excepted of course.

Word of mouth has it that Medicare will take more hits in his budget. Guess he and the pharmaceutical companies and the AMA are after all the bucks they can get.

I remember when my Dad died, putting in for the lump sum Death Payment and getting it. Heh, drop in the bucket it was, but it was used. It was pitfully small to begin with and with inflation became infinitesimal.

Along with that the pres. wants survivor benifits cut for people who have dropped out of school. Punishment for dropping out ? That's about like the problem of what does a community do about pupils who have been expelled from school ? Once expelled they become part of the bigger problem unless chained at home. I see no fairness for cutting off survivor's benefits in any way.

The more time goes by the more the picture gets a bit more grim. The poop keeps oozing out in dribs and drabs, in little bits, HERE AND THERE . . . . . . . . .

Blog