Taking A Look At Bush’s $3.1 Trillion 2009 Federal Budget Proposal.

I have not made any secret of the fact that I am not a fan of G.W., so knowing this will be his last federal budget has me glowing. That being said, I just started taking a look at some of the numbers and facts of the 2009 Federal Budget, and a few of the items in it really caught my eye. But before we get into some of the numbers, let’s take a look at what different media outlets have to say about this proposed budget for 2009:

From the APThe record $3.1 trillion budget proposed by President Bush on Monday would produce eyepopping federal deficits, despite his attempts to impose politically wrenching curbs on Medicare and eliminate scores of popular domestic programs.

From Joseph Cirincione, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress“The president’s plan shows that the military-industrial complex has firm control of a budget now out of control. Given the growing financial crisis gripping this country, no one believes that these numbers are sustainable. But rather than make smart choices and begin a process that restores fiscal discipline, President Bush is spending like — well — like he’s not going to be here next year when the bills come due.”

From ReutersPiling up on the desk of the person who will succeed President George W. Bush when he leaves the White House in January 2009 will be higher budget deficits and looming long-term fiscal problems likely to demand immediate attention.

OK OK, I think we get it. Things are not looking that great – but we do have money to send out those fiscal stimulus checks, don’t we? Not really. For some reason it is OK to send cash to every man, woman and child in the country – even if it is at the expense of Medicaid, low-income hospitals, education grants, the elimination of community services grants to nonprofit groups, a food program aimed at low-income seniors, cuts to clean water grants, funding for local law enforcement and homeland security grants to states and local governments…- and that is in addition to the $200 billion dollars a year we pay in interest on the debt . Yes, you read that right – $200 billion in interest per year. So now let’s take a look at the increases, decreases, and eliminations within this proposed budget:


  • The Pentagon would receive a $36 billion, 8 percent boost
  • Abstinence education
  • Pell Grants for college students from low-income families
  • The Patent and Trademark Office gets $1 billion more
  • Funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program
  • $720 million for a Rube Goldberg anti-missile weapon system in eastern Europe
  • The Securities and Exchange Commission would receive a 1 percent increase


  • Health research funded by the National Institutes of Health would be frozen
  • A reduction of about $400 million to the EPA
  • The Justice Department would face a cut of more than 10 percent in President Bush’s fiscal 2009 budget, reducing funding to programs aimed at helping local police
  • Veterans’ medical programs
  • Energy aid to poor households by $500 million, a 22 percent drop
  • $170 billion in cuts to Medicare and $14 billion to Medicaid
  • The number of housing vouchers that help very poor people pay their rent by 100,000
  • The budget for housing for poor elderly people by 27%
  • Transportation Department cut from $69.2 billion to $63.4 billion
  • The budget for housing for people with disabilities by 32%
  • The fund for repair and maintenance of public housing by 17%


  • The Community Services Block Grant – a $654 million program that provides housing, nutrition, education and job services to low-income people
  • Food stamp coverage for more than 300,000 people in low-income working families with children
  • $283 million federal program to help people make their homes more energy efficient
  • The Hope VI housing program
  • Programs to encourage art in the schools
  • Programs to bring low-income students on trips to Washington
  • Funding to repair public housing that is damaged by natural disasters
  • The HUD rural housing program
  • The $2 billion balance in the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Fund, a non-taxpayer funded resource serving over 3 million crime victims each year

And that is just the tip of the iceberg – it would take a lot of space to list everything in the budget! With a fact like this from MSNBC – “The $3 trillion Bush’s proposes spending in 2009 would be the first time that milestone has been reached. Bush also presided over the first budget to hit $2 trillion, in 2002.” – I am starting to question all the talk from the Republican party about how the Democrats are going to spend our tax money…Tax and spend Democrats? Hey, at least they try to raise the funds before spending the money. Either way, this budget really has no chance of being passed as is with even McCain and Romney saying that it is no good, so it should be interesting to see what happens next. Thankfully, though, we will still get our $600 checks.

Like this article? Please consider subscribing to my full feed RSS. Or, if you would prefer, you can subscribe by Email and have new posts sent directly to your inbox by entering your email address in the box below. Your email will only be used to deliver a daily email and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Comments (18)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Emily says:

    completely insane.

    GW, not you 😉

  2. david says:

    Thank you. 🙂

  3. Four Pillars says:

    Abstinence education

    You can’t be serious that this was in the budget…right?


  4. David says:

    I wish I was kidding. Seriously, he has been funding that crap since he took office.

  5. Jerry says:

    Reading that cuts list sure did lead me to a quick shudder. Veterans’ medical insurance? In a time of war? That is both horrifying and unconscionable. There is no excuse for turning your back on the very people you have placed in harm’s way.

  6. Outlook says:

    Thanks for great information about 2009 budget.

  7. Tim says:

    Let’s not allow your dislike for GW to interfere in a more focused and real analysis of the budget. People need to understand that any president’s budget proposal is just that, a proposal. It has specific cuts and beefed up increases for a reason: as points of negotiation. Any president doesn’t make a budget proposal thinking that that is the final document. They all propose a budget with built in negotiation points not only for items listed in the budget, but also for items not included yet. Being an election year, there is guaranteed to be substantial inclusions by Congress. I will be surprised if the budget does not increase by the time the dust settles. what else is missing in the post are things that are scheduled to expire anyways.

    BTW David and Mike, President Clinton also supported funding substantial abstinence education programs. President Clinton signed budget with effective FY1998 that included $50million per year mandated grant funds toward abstinence education in addition to other abstinence only funding. program has been supported by presidents and congress since 1982. Again, let’s not get dislike for GW in the way of understanding what other presidents and congressmen have supported and continue to support.

    Jerry: veteran’s issues is a hotbed issue since we are in a war in iraq, afghanistan, and every other corner of the world. However, the reality is that there are fewer veterans out there. With the drastic force level reductions in the 90s coupled with wwii and vietnam vets dying off, funding levels aren’t necessarily required anymore. So like other programs, we need to consider the reasons why they are being cut, increased, or excluded in addition to the reason for negotiation within Congress.

  8. […] Taking a Look at Bush’s $3.1 Trillion Budget Proposal – That is a lot of money, so where does it all go? Rather than listen to the media which likes to sensationalize the news, My Two Dollars highlights what funding increased, decreased, and was eliminated all together. […]

  9. david says:

    Tim – separating out any dislikes or likes for any president at all, this proposal is ridiculous. Instead of raising taxes to pay for this war, we are cutting taxes and cutting out anything and everything related to helping our citizens, be it healthcare, food, education, etc. We are in a time of war – why are we cutting taxes? Regular people are not being asked to do anything but go shopping, it’s silly.

    As for the abstinence thing – this administration is anti-abortion, yet they don’t want to teach kids about safe sex? It’s one way or the other, not both. Abstinence programs do not work, plain and simple. Ignoring sex education in exchange for teaching a fairy-tale is not going to help these kids at all.

    This all being said, I don’t want to turn this into a political debate, I just wanted to respond. Thanks for the comment Tim.

  10. Tim says:

    again David, the budget shouldn’t be taken at face value. it’s a republican president and the cuts are clearly areas that democrats consider themselves champions over. again, negotiation points. moreover, it is an election year and the economy is on the frontal lobes of the voters so tax cuts or tax rebates that gives cash in hand when folks go to the polls is much more important than social programs that do nothing to regenerate the economy so the argument goes. moreover, increasing taxes means decreasing disposable income, that isn’t something anyone in congress is going to do during election year or any other year that the economy is slumping.

    abstinence: yes pres. is anti-abortion, which abstinence falls in line with his values. since there is no line item veto, the abstinence funding is inextricably linked to the child welfare and health act that it is included under. any congressman, republican or democrat won’t touch the act because we are always for children. again, not to forget that the $50million mandate for the abstinence grant was added by clinton.

    these budgets are ridiculous regardless of who is in office. they are designed that way so congress has something to do and fight for for their constituents.

  11. Erik says:

    the budget never gets passed the first time. Congress will dismantle that sucker, spit it back at Bush and they’ll agree on something in about a month.

    i’m all for cutting expenses for programs that enable the poor. If you want to put together a program that teaches the poor better money management and career development, I would definitely support that. But, we shouldn’t be taking money away from the disabled and the elderly that are poor. not good.

  12. JohnH says:

    That’s it! I’m signing that petition to arrest Bush and Cheney.


    Is it true that Bush has already pardoned himself? Amazing. He will go down as the worst president in history. Pure evil this guy.

  13. Brip Blap says:

    I sure will be glad when we’ll see the backside of the WPE. It’s been a long 8 years.

    I will say that as a non-Democrat, non-Republican (I’ve voted for Greens in 2 of the last 3 presidential elections) all of the Demopublican budget/economic proposals are for crap, because they are all assembling policy according to the wishes of big pharm and big finance. Nothing one of the corporatist parties does will make much difference in our lives – Bush is worst than most but not unique. I’m very hopeful Obama’s going to do something different, but I’ve been burned before (see Clinton, Bill) on believing in a “progressive” candidate.

  14. david says:

    WPE – nice, I like it.

    I agree, they all pander to the same god – money. I am hoping Obama panders a little less, that’s all. As for Hillary, no way – I am already feeling like this country is a kingdom with the same 2 families running the show. Even if he does 1 tiny thing differently, at least it is not a Bush or a Clinton.
    Thanks for the comment Brip Blap.

  15. Brip Blap says:

    Don’t get me started on the Imperial Presidency. As a matter of principal I don’t vote for anyone who is the son/wife/gradson/etc. of a former Senator/President/etc. I don’t like the idea of a ruling class at all. I have no problem with a female president at all, but I’d like to see a woman who made it on her own achievements, not one whose primary claim to fame is being married to a conservative Democratic ex-president.

    I should also say that as a pragmatist I don’t mind the cuts in programs at all – but only as long as they are not used as an excuse to increase war spending or cut taxes further. I’m all in favor of cutting spending and holding taxes steady (or increasing them) since as a financially semi-conscious person I’m in favor of spending less than we earn as a nation…

    And as an accountant I will say that the SEC needs more money – they remain a relatively non-partisan watchdog that ever so vaguely protects investors. The Pentagon? What we’ve spent on the Iraq war could’ve paid for the retirement of the entire Boomer generation (including healthcare) already. Yeah, sure, give ’em some more money. I’m sure there’s some Middle Eastern country that has it coming to them.

  16. […] package that passed this week, including quite a few comments from fellow financial bloggers like My Two Dollars and I’ve Paid For This Twice Already. People generally think the stimulus package is a great […]

  17. Joy says:

    Tim I agree with Jerry, read the book Wounded by RJ Glasser MD,
    about the wounded coming out of Iraq – Polytrama they call it –
    This newest type of casualty coming out of this war involves severe and devastating multiple traumas: severe head injuries, vision and hearing loss, nerve damage, bone fractures, contaminated wounds, severed limbs, transected spinal cords along with emotional and behavioural problems. Example of trauma: Pulmonary trauma: the most critcal injury in troops close to a blast center, following an explosion is there is no time for any part of the body to adjust to the change in surrounding air pressure it can explode the air in the lungs they then bleed. These young men and women’s lives are never the same again and GWB wants decease the VET funding it’s an utter disgrace to the richest country in the world.