IF it was a mystery for some, all questions now have been answered. President George W. Bush is not following in his father's footsteps but in those of Ronald Reagan. The fiscal year 2005 proposal that currently is being prepared by the Bush administration and is scheduled to be presented to Congress next month is modeled after those offered during the Reagan era. The Bush budget is expected to reduce aid to the poor, increase tax cuts for the wealthy and offer record spending for the military, as the administration continues its imperial march. With a proposal like this, the man can't be worried about winning reelection.

For those who may not have been paying attention, back in the 1980s when the Republicans’ hero was mere mortal but prime implementer of the conservative agenda, Reagan nearly decimated cities with his austere budgets. There was wholesale divestment in urban centers, leaving mayors reeling and instigating financial crises like the ones that eventually hit Philadelphia and later Washington, D.C. (It’s true, local mismanagement compounded federal neglect). Under Reagan, housing, particularly for the poor, deteriorated. Investment in education was more like a trickle--in keeping with his trickle down economic policy, which someone once called "Voodoo Economics." Other domestic programs were reduced to bare minimum. And, states were asked to pick up the pieces, through block grants that weren’t even sufficient to finance the lavish lifestyles of the top 200 conservative financiers.

Well, it’s "deja vu all over again." Bush and his minions are happy to drop more than $80 billion in Iraq to pay for its reconstruction. But they are intent on reining in spending for Americans, who are picking up the Iraqi war tab. Citizens in this country will see, if Bush goes ahead with his plans, a reduction in vouchers used by the poor to pay for affordable and suitable housing. Some veterans may be forced to pay for their health insurance, which has to be the ultimate insult to those who jeopardized their lives for this country. The administration is expected to tamp down biomedical research, which it wasn’t too keen on anyway. And this may be the greatest assault: At a time it is claiming that its tax cuts have lead to a boost in the economy, the administration is expected to proposed eliminating some job training and employment programs. Anyone who has paid attention over the past several weeks knows that while Wall Street might be loving Bush, average citizens are having a terrible time. The slight upswing in the economy has not translated into employment for citizens.

But who really cares when the average Joe or Josephine can’t find work? Who cares when they can’t pay for a visit to the doctor for themselves or their children? Who cares that veterans, some still suffering from the ravages of the Viet Nam War, or the Gulf War and now the Iraq War may be forced to pony up money for  their own medical costs? There were only dry eyes when Reagan devastated domestic programs in America, and you had better believed no tears will be shed in the White House when Bush submits his budget.

If the Democrats thought they had lost the edge for 2004 presidential campaign with the capture of Saddam Hussein, they're in luck. At least on the domestic front, Bush’s 2005 budget offers a veritable feast for those who are stunningly disappointed by the government’s continued foreign spending, or special interest financing (as is sure to happen for the beef industry) while middle and poor America is ignored. Let's see what Democrats do with this.