President Bush’s release of his budget proposal on Feb. 7 confirmed widespread speculation that its contents would prove unfavorable for a number of important agencies and social programs. The president stated many times in the weeks leading up to the budget release that his proposal for fiscal year 2006 (FY 06) would be “tough.” In a bold effort to cut our national deficit in half — the same deficit which is mostly the result of his costly tax policies — Bush proposed slicing and dicing funding for many domestic programs, which would result in the termination of some. As expected, a range of budget analysts, economists, journalists, and political and nonprofit organizations have spent the last two weeks criticizing the president’s budget as detrimental to the nation as a whole. Prominent among the expected critics are OMB Watch, the Coalition on Human Needs and the the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. However, in a somewhat surprising development, some political leaders within Bush’s own party are showing skepticism regarding aspects of Bush’s fiscal plan. As Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-NH) — himself a supporter of the FY 06 budget proposal — noted, the president’s budget is “creating some significant angst among my colleagues.” One notable GOP leader to voice opposition is Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH). Voinovich, along with Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and others, is part of the Centrist Coalition, a group of senators interested in working in a bipartisan manner to create more fiscally responsible tax and budget policies. Voinovich is particularly concerned with Bush’s demand in the budget proposal that Congress make permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, estimated to cost at least $1.134 trillion from 2006–2015. That is a hefty sum, especially considering the future unknown costs of war efforts, Medicaid and Medicare liabilities, and a potentially very costly overhaul of Social Security. After Bush very strongly publicly encouraged Congress to make the tax cuts permanent, Voinovich responded by saying he would do whatever he can to block the president’s tax cuts, including voting against the entire budget. The concerns of these lawmakers are well-founded. Bush’s proposed policies are not only costly now, but will continue to grow increasingly more expensive in the years ahead. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), both Bush’s proposed and enacted tax cuts would cost $1.058 trillion from 2006–2010, and more than double that amount — $2.453 trillion — if applied through 2015. One Washington Post article points out, by the time the next president is in office, there could very little flexibility for any new initiatives, and instead the entire term may need to focus on “figuring out how to accommodate the long-range cost of Bush’s policies.” This concerns those who may seek the White House in 2008, such as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). One advisor to McCain, John Weaver, said, “Hopefully some very difficult decisions will be addressed between now and the time we have a new White House resident so that occupant isn’t faced with some very expensive chickens coming home to roost.” In addition, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are questioning the administration regarding its latest request for emergency supplemental war spending. Last week the administration asked Congress to pass $82 billion in supplemental emergency war funds to pay for ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, antiterrorism operations, and tsunami relief. Key congressional GOP leaders are now expressing skepticism in lieu of the deference most gave the administration regarding earlier emergency war funding. Even House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) noted that Bush’s request included expenses “that probably do not qualify as immediate emergencies.” Other members questioned Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during recent hearings as to whether this request tries to falsely cloak some of these expenses as emergencies to minimize scrutiny and help them pass more easily. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) told Rumsfeld, “Mr. Secretary, this seems to me to be an abuse — an extraordinary abuse — of the supplemental process.” Democrats and Republicans alike seem to believe the $82 billion requested by the White House can be scaled back dramatically, especially concerning costs to build a new, large embassy in Baghdad. In the next few weeks Congress will decide how much supplemental emergency war spending is necessary to pass at this time. The fact that powerful GOP lawmakers are questioning Bush’s spending requests — from Voinovich on the tax cuts to Delay on the emergency funding request — is a continuing sign of the increased difficulties President Bush is encountering so far in his second term. The fiscal health of this country depends on Congress both providing increased scrutiny in funding matters, and being willing to hold the administration accountable for its policies.