It's similar to demanding bandages to treat a gun shot wound seen on ER.

The MSM is lying. Water is wet.

I remember something similar happening in 1996 when the Republicans voted to increase the budget for school lunch programs, but allowed the states to distribute the money.

Liberals may be the only people on the planet that would ask you for 10 dollars, and when you only give them five would accuse you of robbing them.

Amazing. More proff the MSM/DNC lies. How can anyone as liberal as Bush be called "conservarive"? Yet the MSM does it all the time. He has grown the government faster than any President since LBJ. He is no conservative. He is a "Read my lips" conservative. What people who can think independently call liberals.

He has grown the government almost 40% in 6 years! FDR would be in awe. Ronnie has to be gnashing his teeth!
To call Bush a conservative is a smear on Ronnie; which is precisely what the MSM/DNC want to do.

I like this headline from (gee, what a shock) Reuters:
Bush slashes domestic programs, boosts defense

Yes folks, there are now at most one or two domestic programs left alive.
About midway in the article, we actually get the percentage. Non-discretionary defense gets cut by 0.5% Yes, half of one percent.

Now, mind you, the proposed budget is $2.77 trillion, with $440 billion for defense, leaving only $2.33 trillion for everything else.

A couple of years ago, Bush called a Democratic-proposed decrease in the size of his tax cuts a tax increase. So, now he gets to have the same inverted language thrown back at him. It's the wrong language to use in both situations, but it's the language of the day.

CS

CS-
That's a riculous argument. If Bush "proposed" 10% tax cut & I got 5% that would be a tax cut, period. If congress proposed a year later to "halve my tax cut" that would be a 2.5% percent tax increase, period. If bush promised me that my favorite government program would receive increased funding next year and instead its funding didn't change, that would not be cutting my funding.
By your logic if the government proposed taxing me at 100% they could only ever give me taxcuts, whether they followed through by taxing me 1% or 99%.

That's one thing I regret about the Contract With America. The proviso on replacing the current services benchmark method of budgeting with the zero-based method never caught on. So, the federal budget automatically grows by a set percentage every year, and will continue to do so.

For those of up who remember the Seventies and Eighties, the current round of talk about cuts and fiscal restraint is like spending the day at the magician's booth at the fair. The tricks are only intended to be seen once.

I wish some intrepid person would do a little research to see how the NYTimes and WaPo spun these budget unveilings during the Clinton years...