From
Mick (one of my favorite blogs)
Bush and Social Darwinism
If Elizabeth Bumiller is too busy noting the length and strength of the standing ovations President Junior gets from his Rovian hand-picked audiences to inform us that virtually everything he says in the speech itself is a lie, the NY Times' Robert Pear has done a little more of his homework.
WASHINGTON, May 18 — Like many of its predecessors, the Bush White House has used the machinery of government to promote the re-election of the president by awarding federal grants to strategically important states. But in a twist this election season, many administration officials are taking credit for spreading largess through programs that President Bush tried to eliminate or to cut sharply.
Nice to know somebody at the Times has caught up at last. Just so you know, Robert, what you stumbled onto is called a 'BushCon'--a bait-and-switch shell game when you praise a program in public that you know people like just before you destroy it in private. Oh, and by the way? They've been doing it for three years, Bob. Three years. But better late than never, I suppose. (Seems like I've been saying that a lot lately.)
Nice as it was of you to notice after three years, though, I have to say that 'cut sharply' is a leetle understated. See, Bob, a 10-20% cut is 'sharp'; a 30% cut is usually 'devastating'; 80 and 90% cuts are elimination in everything but name.
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.
Those are salaries, Bob. The Law 'n Order President is cutting $650MIL$ worth of police officers from the nation's streets. It wasn't enough as it was; $100Mil is a drop in the bucket, the virtual elimination of the program. But you gotta admit, it's a neat trick: people will hear your announcement and think you're boosting programs when what you're actually doing is taking away $650Mil and then making a big deal about giving less than $50M of it back. The people get bamboozled into thinking they've gained $50M when in fact they've lost $600M. Cute.
Read more it, of course, just gets worse.
Note: Great site above, but I wish they would do more linking to their sources (or at least mentioning where they got the figures).
