When it comes to evaluating Bush’s budget, I favor the pro-clarity position.
Jack Markell knows a little something about budgets. Here is his recent statement on Bush’s budget.
“Once again, President Bush’s rhetoric doesn’t match the reality of his promises to the American people.
In his newly released budget, he once again puts tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of the needs of working Americans. Education, the environment and the poor get short shrift. And perhaps worst of all, the President’s budget increases the burden we all leave to our children and grandchildren as they are the ones to whom he passes such a huge debt obligation.
As the Washington Post editorial writers commented today, Mr. Bush’s plan is ‘more illusory than real.’
We’ve learned to expect nothing less from this President.”
Not at all wishy-washy. Now contrast that with Castle’s statement on Bush’s budget.
“Anytime a President submits a budget proposal to Congress, there is going to be close scrutiny and even more so during a time of divided government — and deservedly so. Overall, it is important to understand the Administration’s priorities and learn how federal agencies evaluate their programs’ strengths and weaknesses.
“In general, I obviously support the idea of moving towards a balanced budget and am hopeful the numbers with respect to deficit reduction are accurate; however, ….
Blahbidty, blah, blah, blah….same old same old from Mr. Castle.