A proposed budget breakdown the Administration doesn't want you to see.

I pulled this from another group, but it's an excellent summary of exactly what Bush is proposing to do. You can find the link to the full article and graphs here.

As the person who posted this mentioned, pay special attention to how the Administration is hiding numbers they don't want the public to know and inflating others to make themselves look better.

Here's the short analysis of what's going on:

This short analysis examines the priorities reflected in the Administration's
budget, the effects of its proposals on the deficit, and some budget gimmicks it
contains.

The Priorities of the Budget

The budget makes very substantial cuts in domestic spending at the same time
that it calls for large additional tax cuts. If defense, homeland security, and
international affairs are funded at the levels the President proposes, then by
2010, funding for domestic discretionary programs (outside homeland security)
would have to be cut about $66 billion, or 16 percent, below the 2005 levels,
adjusted for inflation. These cuts hit programs - in areas such as education,
veterans' health care, and environmental protection - of importance to large
numbers of Americans.

The budget proposes new tax cuts costing $1.4 trillion over 10 years (a figure
that rises to $1.6 trillion when the resulting interest payments are added in),
even though the paucity of revenues is the main reason behind the rise in the
deficit. Revenues are now lower, as a share of the economy, than in any year
in the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, or the 1990s. Yet the Administration's
budget would make its tax cuts permanent and add a number of new tax cuts on
top. It proposes, for example, a series of new tax cuts related to savings
that, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center of the Urban Institute
and the Brookings Institution, would go overwhelmingly to those with incomes
above $100,000. Furthermore, these savings proposals are designed around a
timing gimmick, so they produce increased tax revenues over the next five years
but lose massive sums in future decades. The Congressional Research Service has
estimated that these new tax cuts eventually cost the equivalent today of $300
billion to $500 billion over ten years.

Key low-income programs would be hit even though these programs have contributed
little to the return of the deficit, and since 2000, poverty has risen and the
number of Americans without health insurance has climbed. The number of poor
went up for the third straight year in 2003, the share of total income that goes
to the bottom two-fifths of households has fallen to one of its lowest levels
since the end of World War II, and the number of people lacking health insurance
rose to 45 million in 2003, the highest level on record. Yet the budget
proposes food stamp cuts that will eliminate benefits for approximately 300,000
people primarily in low-income working families and a five-year freeze on child
care funding that, according to tables in the Administration's budget, will
result in cutting the number of low-income children receiving child care
assistance by 300,000 in 2009. The budget also proposes to reduce Medicaid
funding by at least $45 billion over 10 years; such a proposal would almost
certainly push hard-pressed states to eliminate coverage for a substantial
number of low-income people, increasing the ranks of the uninsured and the
underinsured.

Effects on the Deficit

Despite cuts to scores of domestic programs, the Administration's budget
increases rather than decreases the deficit over the next five years. As shown
by its own figures, the effect of the Administration's budget is to increase
total deficits over the next five years from $1.364 trillion under current law
to $1.393 trillion. A main reason for this outcome is the tax-cut proposals
the Administration has included in its budget.

Over the longer run, by proposing to make its tax cuts permanent, the
Administration's budget proposals would dramatically swell the deficit. In 2015
alone, the Administration's tax proposals - including the cost of making the
2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent - would reduce revenues by $287 billion. The
total effect on the deficit, including the related interest costs, would be $358
billion. The Administration's proposal to replace part of Social Security with
private accounts also would swell deficits further. It would add $1.4 trillion
to deficits in its first ten years (2019 to 2028) and another $3.5 trillion in
the decade after that. In 2015 alone, it would add $177 billion.

Budgetary Hide and Seek

For the first time since 1989, the budget fails to provide information about the
funding of specific discretionary programs beyond the upcoming budget year,
thereby hiding the impact of the large discretionary cuts it is proposing. The
budget fails to show how much the Administration proposes to provide for
individual discretionary programs - which include education, veterans' health
care, and many other programs - after 2006. This is notable since the budget
proposes a "hard freeze" on domestic discretionary spending (outside homeland
security) for five years, to be enforced by binding caps on discretionary
programs. As discussed, this would result in a $66 billion cut in these
programs by 2010 (compared to today's level, adjusted only for inflation). But
the budget omits the Administration's proposals for the specific cuts it
envisions to comply with these caps.

The Administration also proposes a new budget rule that would require that
legislation to make the tax cuts permanent be treated as if such legislation had
already been enacted. When CBO and OMB are asked to provide estimates of the
cost of legislation to extend the tax cuts or make them permanent, they would be
required to produce estimates showing the cost to be zero. This proposal is
significant: it would exempt legislation to extend the tax cuts, or make them
permanent, from any Congressional budget enforcement. Such budgetary
legerdemain would be unprecedented and shatter rules designed to promote some
modicum of fiscal responsibility.

The Administration insists on its practice of budgeting for only five years,
masking the full cost of its tax cuts, while it simultaneously insists on using
"infinite" or 75-year time horizons in other contexts. A principal reason the
Administration cites for providing only a five-year budget is that estimates of
the budget beyond the fifth year are too uncertain. Yet the Administration
contends that the traditional 75-year test of solvency used by the Social
Security actuaries and most social insurance experts is not long enough and that
Social Security solvency must be measured into eternity. The Administration
also proposes that cost estimates for major entitlement legislation be produced
for 75 years, although it wants the cost of tax bills estimated for only five or
ten years.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Read carefully. This is your future, and your children's future, that the Bush Administration wants to gut.

Take a fresh look at the Democratic party. They are for the everyday working man and woman.

Democrats care when you are laid off work and need retraining to find a new job, and want to provide access no matter what race or religion you are.

Democrats care that, even working two jobs, you don't earn enough money to support your family and live above the poverty level and want to do something about it.

If a member of your family gets sick, Democrats want them to be able to get the best medical attention possible.

If you need a helping hand to afford the ever-rising cost of a college education, Democrats want to insure you have all the opportunities that America's wealthy children have.

Democrats believe in the sanctity of quality public education.

Democrats want the air you breathe not to make you sick, and the water you drink not to cause birth defects in your children.

Democrats believe in good business, not big business.

The Republican party isn't about 'moral values'. It is morally corrupt.

It's not the rich who are in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting without proper equipment - it's the working class. It's not Democrats who are looking to cut funding to programs our returning veterans desperately need - it's Republicans.

Working America is bearing the brunt of the war in Iraq at terrible personal expense, but it is the rich who are profiting.

Corporations and the uber rich have bought and paid for the Republican party.

It's time for middle America to realize that Republicans are not 'good for business'. They're for big business, and it's at your expense.