"Jim Vadek" <toomuchspam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4m1bb.299370$2x.87247@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
Here is the transcript of last week's "Meet The Press" with ***** Cheney.
Chaney on deficit reduction also caught my <cough> interest:
<snip>
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Tax cuts accounted for only about 25 percent of
the deficit.
MR. RUSSERT: But we see deficits for the next 10 years, big ones. How
do you deal with that, when you have Social Security, Medicare, coming up?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: We anticipate even with the added spending that we
've asked for now we'll cut the deficit roughly in half from where it'll be
next year over the next five years.
I can't decipher this. Is he saying that next year's deficit - after
the $87B is added, will be cut in half over five years so that the
total of deficit projected amounts to 1/2 X next year + the projected
deficits of years 2,3,4, and five.
Take note. That ain't much.
So we'll be moving in the right direction.
Not really. It sounds more like smoke and mirrors.
We've got to have-without question, we've got to make choices, we
've got to have fiscal discipline on the rest of the budget.
Oh! So the rest of the budget must bear the brunt of the years 2,3,4,
and 5 deficits.
But the idea
that we can't defend America or that we can't go do what needs to be done in
the Middle East with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan, support the troops,
rebuild those countries so they never again become safe havens for
terrorists to threaten our safety and our security, is silly. The cost of
one attack on 9/11 was far greater than what we're spending in Iraq.
<snip>
And here, Chaney qualifies everything that came before. America is
writing a blank check for Bush/Chaney starting with $87B to prime the
pump. $60B of that is military funny-money. Cha-ching!
.
