Yes Bush sees it, in fact, he has to propose it and sign it. But he has to do so with the understanding that it has to be approved by Congress as well. He also understands that if he even reduces the amount of 'built-in' increase in funding for precious entitlement programs, the opposition will deem it a "cut" and attack him with it. So the president (any president) is in a precarious position, because the operation of vital federal government services depend on the budget being passed by Congress.
While we are on the subject of President Bush, which was not the topic of the thread... Let's also discuss Walter E. Williams brilliantly articulated point, with the 'votes for taxes' idea. His fundamental concern is, the danger of having no tax liability. It has become popular for presidents who cut taxes, to literally remove millions from the tax roles completely. He criticizes Bush for this in his article, by the way. The problem, he says, is that America keeps releasing people from their obligation to pay federal income tax, and they remain in control of how the money is spent and how much tax is charged to whom. He points out Madison's concerns over land owners having too much power, but the very point Madison made, also warns of the danger in too much power by those who owned no land.
He proposes a correction for the problem, and that is... one man, one vote, plus extra votes for every $10k in Federal Income Tax paid. I would even be more Liberal than Mr. Williams and allow an extra vote if you paid ANY Federal Income Tax at all! I might even be inclined to add a half vote for the indigent, just for being a citizen of the US! But the bottom line would be, those who are paying the most income tax, would have the most political power in votes. This has absolutely nothing to do with wealth, and everything to do with fairness.
