Bush Trumpets Programs He Wanted Cut

We are accustomed to the cynical and self-serving actions of politicians - for example, how they might promote social programs they don’t really believe in merely because they hope it will get them votes. But how much cynicism is required for a politician to try to get re-elected based upon programs they tried to eliminate?

Robert Pear writes for The New York Times reports on how some administration officials have been trying to take credit for spending on things Bush wanted to cut:

For example, Justice Department officials recently announced that they were awarding $47 million to scores of local law enforcement agencies for the hiring of police officers. Mr. Bush had just proposed cutting the budget for the program, known as Community Oriented Policing Services, by 87 percent, to $97 million next year, from $756 million.

The administration has been particularly energetic in publicizing health programs, even ones that had been scheduled for cuts or elimination. Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, announced recently that the administration was awarding $11.7 million in grants to help 30 states plan and provide coverage for people without health insurance. Mr. Bush had proposed ending the program in each of the last three years. The administration also announced recently that it was providing $11.6 million to the states so they could buy defibrillators to save the lives of heart attack victims. But Mr. Bush had proposed cutting the budget for such devices by 82 percent, to $2 million from $10.9 million.

In April, Secretary Thompson announced that the administration was awarding $3.1 million in grants to improve health care in rural areas of Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico and New York. He did not mention that the administration was trying to cut the same rural health program by 72 percent, to $11.1 million next year, from $39.6 million. Mr.. Thompson likewise recently boasted that the administration was awarding $16 million to 11 universities to train blacks and Hispanic Americans as doctors, dentists and pharmacists. But at the same time, the administration was urging Congress to abolish the program, on the ground that "private and corporate entities" could pay for training.

One of the problems with such things, aside from the obvious hypocrisy, is that it highlights the difference between “official” and “political” trips. An administration official making a trip for George W. Bush’s reelection campaign cannot use government funds, but they can use government funds for “official” government business. When an official is touting a program the administration wants cut, it sounds like they are really on a reelection trip, not an official trip. Who, then, is paying for the trips mentioned above?

Read More:

• Guide to Ethics and Morality