Safely ensconced in a second undeserved term, Chimpy is socking it to the gullible 51%.
Red America is a bit red-in-the-face over President Bush’s new budget.
Within a few hours of the release of the president’s proposal last week, Rep. John E. Peterson (R-Pa.), co-chairman of the Congressional Rural Caucus, fired off a statement criticizing the president he typically supports.
“We expected to fight cuts to rural programs under the Clinton administration,” he said. “But those who are currently advocating these draconian cuts would not be in office today if it weren’t for rural America. These cuts disproportionately target essential programs in rural communities while turning a blind eye to the wasteful spending that is rampant in many big cities across the country.”
According to an analysis of Bush’s budget proposals, red states won by Bush in 2004 would experience cuts in federal grants in 2006 equal to 2.33 percent of their budgets on average. But blue states won by the Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), in 2004 would lose federal grant money equal to only 1.74 percent of their budgets on average. The averages were compiled using an analysis of Bush’s budget proposal by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal advocacy group, which looked at aid payments, other than Medicaid, to states.