Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Bush Halves Deficit - Three Years Early

Heh. (via Instapundit)

The Investor's Business Daily reported yesterday that
Aided by surging tax receipts, President Bush may make good on his pledge to cut the deficit in half in 2006 — three years early.

Tax revenues are running $176 billion, or 12.9%, over last year, the Treasury Department said Monday. The Congressional Budget Office said receipts have risen faster over the first eight months of fiscal '06 than in any other such period over the past 25 years — except for last year's 15.5% jump.

The 2006 deficit through May was $227 billion, down from $273 billion at this time last year. Spending is up $130 billion, or 7.9%.
There is much to write about in this piece, but rather than quote the whole article I recommend reading it yourself.

What's interesting to note is that this deficit cut is despite a huge spending increase: If the President would actually work harder on cutting out the pork and wasteful spending that is so prevalent the past few years, perhaps the deficit would be even closer to disappearing, though the article says that only amounts to about $10 billion/year.

The article also notes that this does not help solve the long-term problems that Social Security and other programs will bring. I think it's about time the government acted to fix it: It's a shame that Democrats obstructed it when it was brought up a few years ago, and it's a shame that Bush let them. The time has come to fix Social Security.

26 Comments:

Blogger Charlie Hall said...

I don't give Bush credit for reducing a deficit that didn't exist when he took office.

6/14/2006 4:12 PM  
Blogger Ezzie said...

What policies of his caused the deficit to come into being?

Notice that the downturn of the economy began when the tech bubble burst in September of 2000, with Clinton still in office.

6/14/2006 4:13 PM  
Blogger The Jewish Freak said...

Maybe now the government won't have to steal dead rich people's estates.

6/14/2006 4:14 PM  
Blogger Ezzie said...

Additionally, you're avoiding the main points of the post which are that the change in tax rates actually did boost the economy and tax revenues, in line with the President's claims and contrary to those on the left.

Clearly, tax rates were too high. Are they still too high? Perhaps. But they're not too low, that's for certain.

6/14/2006 4:14 PM  
Blogger Ezzie said...

JF - Cute.

6/14/2006 4:15 PM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

'What policies of his caused the deficit to come into being?'

Tax cuts and spending increases.

Sorry, Ezzie, you can't spin your way out of this one. Under Clinton, we had a surplus. The previous surplus was the last year of Lyndon Johnson's administration.

6/14/2006 10:55 PM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

'The time has come to fix Social Security.'

What do you mean by "fix"?

6/14/2006 11:02 PM  
Blogger Ezzie said...

Tax cuts and spending increases.

That's ridiculous. The spending increases are nothing compared to the budget deficit, and the deficit came about before the tax cuts were implemented. Look at tax revenues since the tax cuts - soaring, thanks to the economic boom.

Clinton had a surplus thanks to an economic bubble created by the high-tech industry. When that bubble burst, so did the surplus.

Fixing Social Security is for another post. :)

6/15/2006 2:08 AM  
Blogger Shlomo said...

Iraqi war spending is NOT included in this budget. NEVER trust the Republicans to get even close to the truth. This particular press release is timed to the 2006 election cycle, where the deficit is a major issue.

I agree with Charlie. GW has just announced "Hey. Guess what? I'm not as bad as I used to be!" (Providing you really believe the propoganda.)

6/15/2006 11:48 AM  
Blogger Shlomo said...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ omb/ budget/ fy2007/ pdf/ hist.pdf

The estimate is that the 2006 fiscal year deficit for the unified budget is approximately $423B. In absolute terms this is a world record budget deficit! FY 2005 unified budget deficit was approximately $318B. We have never been this far in the ‘hole’ EVER.

If Bush’s claim that the deficit will be cut in half from the previous year, it is demonstrably false and, I have to ask, from which year is he speaking? Also, there is no possible way, considering this administration’s fiscal policy that refuses to raise taxes on the wealthiest in this country the deficit will get significantly smaller! All tax increases have hit the middle class hardest.

Further, these are unified budget figures that add the Social Security SURPLUS to the “on budget” DEFICIT. Without this accounting deception, the fiscal situation is much, much worse! The budgetary outlook for 2006 has degraded by about $800 billion since Bush took office.

Let’s not forget the BILLIONS of dollars unaccounted for in Iraq. GW never ran a successful business in his life. This is nothing more than Enron style accounting games.

Kol Tuv

6/15/2006 12:03 PM  
Blogger Classmate-Wearing-Yarmulka said...

SL- I'm pretty sure Clinton's budget surplus was only made possible by using the Social Security surplus. It's an accounting trick that the government has used for years.

6/15/2006 12:40 PM  
Blogger Shlomo said...

Ok. So what is so special about Clinton that EVERY SINGLE TIME anyone ever points out the corruption, lying, stealing, warmongering, obfuscating, etc. etc. ad nauseum in reference to the Bush Regime, that GW's defender must fall back on the lamest excuse available: blaming a man no longer in office, and no longer in power.

Like your political philosophy, this maneuver is just plain childish.

And so what if Clinton did it? Does that make it ok now for the Republicans to follow suit? Or does it mean that GW is just as much a criminal as Bill Clinton? If so, why do you defend him?

Constantly bringing up Bill Clinton makes you look like a desperate and shallow radio talk show groupie.

6/15/2006 1:04 PM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

'I'm pretty sure Clinton's budget surplus was only made possible by using the Social Security surplus.'

Not true. See page 26 of

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf


't's an accounting trick that the government has used for years.'

It isn't really an accounting trick; it is 100% correct to include all the special off budget funds in the ledger of government income and expenses from a macroeconomic perspective. Congress and the White House can arbitrarily declare something "on budget" or "off budget".

6/15/2006 2:16 PM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

Note also in that reference that receipts declined each year relative to the year before in the first three years of the Bush administration. The last time that had happened was during the first three years of the Harding administration!

6/15/2006 2:22 PM  
Blogger Shlomo said...

"Fix Social Security"

This meme is the battle cry rallying the faithful to destroy any and ALL social programs and, at the same time, funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of Wall St. investment firms. They will gamble with your future and when they lose it, you will have nowhere to turn for help.

If Social Security needs fixing, here are two simple suggestions. First, raise the cap so that the wealthier pay a more, and second, implement means testing to determine who needs the benefit and who does not. 'Fixing', however, off the tongue of a Republican , means putting our future in the hands of those who brought us the Great Depression and dozens of other market crashes since then. Not to mention the rampant thievery and corruption that Wall St. routinely engages in (see Eliot Spitzer for on that.)

I can't wait for someone here to tell us all about the glorious benefits of privitization, how big government is always bad, and why people should have more 'choices'.

Bring it!

6/15/2006 5:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah yes, the dozens of market crashes since '29. Dozens implies at least 24.

Start listing them.

6/15/2006 7:42 PM  
Blogger Classmate-Wearing-Yarmulka said...

Ok. So what is so special about Clinton that EVERY SINGLE TIME anyone ever points out the corruption, lying, stealing, warmongering, obfuscating, etc. etc. ad nauseum in reference to the Bush Regime, that GW's defender must fall back on the lamest excuse available: blaming a man no longer in office, and no longer in power.

We point to Clinton, because he was the last President before Bush, so it's a useful comparison. No one really cares what Jimmy Carter did.

6/15/2006 7:43 PM  
Blogger Ezzie said...

SL, you're going waaaay off on this. (Charlie, you too.)

Firstly, I suggest reading the proposal to fix Social Security. [I actually wasted my time reading through the whole damn thing.] There are three options there, NONE of which involve any "gambling" by Wall Street firms, and considering that the market has risen an average of 8% for the last 100 years, it is patently ridiculous that Social Security rises about 1.7%. 1.7% is LESS than T-Bills (now running about 5%), which are guaranteed as long as this country doesn't disappear. That's insane.

I don't see how that has *anything* to do with social programs other than SocSec, and anyone with an understanding of the market nowadays would recognize that a collapse is basically impossible. The people of this country actually learned from the Great Depression and other market crashes, and one will notice that each major crash becomes successively less devestating in scope. 9/11, which [economically] was far worse than what started the crash of '29, dented the market - but what, 10%? If that? On an already dropping market from the bubble burst?

Charlie - You keep pointing to the first years of Presidencies, which simply doesn't make sense. Because economies run in cycles, and most policies don't have an immediate impact on the economy itself, the first couple years of any Presidency is heavily affected by whatever policies were implemented at the end of the previous Presidency. The best way of analyzing economic effect is to start from where one would expect those effects to kick in. In Bush's case, that would be from when the tax cuts were implemented in 2002. The economy immediately picked up as companies now knew they'd have that much more to put back into their products, and tax revenues subsequently soared as GDP rose.

Why would you look at the first 3 years, but blatantly ignore the last 3? How did the boom of the last 3 happen? Was it from Clinton? No. Was it a fluke? No.

A: It was the tax cuts.

6/15/2006 8:57 PM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

'The best way of analyzing economic effect is to start from where one would expect those effects to kick in. In Bush's case, that would be from when the tax cuts were implemented in 2002.'

Actually, much of it was retroactive to January 1, 2001. Rebate checks were sent out October 1, 2001. All the major provisions were in effect by January 1, 2002. Fiscal year 2001 began October 1, 2000 so the first three months were entirely Clinton's policies. Note that Fiscal year 2001 had only a small decline in revenues compared to fiscal year 2000. FY 2002 had a large decline compared to FY 2001, and FY 2003 another significant decline compared to FY 2002. If you were correct you would have seen an increase in FY 2003, and possibly in FY 2002 as well. Such an increase in revenues did not happen. Sorry Ezzie, you can't blame this one on Clinton -- the tax cuts clearly were followed by lower revenues.

6/16/2006 12:15 AM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

'We point to Clinton, because he was the last President before Bush, so it's a useful comparison'

Agreed. The budget deficit was reduced every year of the Clinton administration, until it disappeared and was replaced by a surplus, which increased every year until Bush took over. My source from this is that document previously cited from the Bush White House.

6/16/2006 12:17 AM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

' GW never ran a successful business in his life. '

FWIW this is not true. The baseball team was pretty successful. It did help that a publicly funded ballpark was build during his tenure as managing general partner.

6/16/2006 12:21 AM  
Blogger Shlomo said...

GW had the taxpayers build his team a stadium under the threat of taking the team out of Houston. Them GW sell the team with the stadium and the taxpayer gets NOTHING, while GW profits from taxpayer funded efforts. (GW invests 600k and sells team/staduim for 20 mil.)

That isn't success. It is the SOP of the Neocons and it's just plain criminal.

6/20/2006 3:08 PM  
Blogger Charlie Hall said...

'GW sell the team with the stadium and the taxpayer gets NOTHING, while GW profits from taxpayer funded efforts'

The team was successful before the stadium was built. And I can't blame him for being successful at getting the government to do what he wanted it to do. The owners of the Yankees and Mets managed to do the same thing here in NYC. As has ever defense contractor with a contract to develop unnecessary weapons systems (which most new ones are -- but Republicans don't complain about THAT corporate welfare). My antipathy towards Bush is well known, but I don't think he deserves this one.

6/22/2006 11:08 PM  
Blogger ninest123 said...

longchamp outlet, louboutin outlet, louboutin, polo ralph lauren outlet, nike air max, ray ban sunglasses, cheap oakley sunglasses, oakley sunglasses, burberry, gucci outlet, michael kors, nike roshe run, tiffany jewelry, jordan shoes, replica watches, longchamp pas cher, louis vuitton outlet, ray ban sunglasses, louis vuitton, replica watches, nike outlet, uggs on sale, louboutin pas cher, ugg boots, ray ban sunglasses, prada outlet, prada handbags, oakley sunglasses, tiffany and co, sac longchamp, nike free, oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton, ugg boots, air max, kate spade outlet, louis vuitton outlet, longchamp, louis vuitton, nike free, nike air max, air jordan pas cher, christian louboutin outlet, chanel handbags, oakley sunglasses, tory burch outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, ralph lauren pas cher, longchamp outlet, louboutin shoes

7/23/2016 8:02 PM  
Blogger ninest123 said...

mcm handbags, timberland boots, louboutin, hollister, hollister, jimmy choo shoes, lululemon, reebok shoes, giuseppe zanotti, asics running shoes, herve leger, oakley, bottega veneta, mac cosmetics, iphone cases, p90x workout, vans, north face outlet, valentino shoes, chi flat iron, ray ban, soccer jerseys, nike trainers, celine handbags, ghd, nike air max, north face outlet, new balance, converse outlet, gucci, ralph lauren, nike air max, lancel, longchamp, nike roshe, instyler, vans shoes, nfl jerseys, birkin bag, soccer shoes, baseball bats, babyliss, hollister, beats by dre, ferragamo shoes, wedding dresses, abercrombie and fitch, nike huarache, mont blanc, insanity workout

7/23/2016 8:08 PM  
Blogger ninest123 said...

montre pas cher, swarovski crystal, wedding dresses, louis vuitton, canada goose, moncler, canada goose uk, pandora charms, ugg,uggs,uggs canada, ugg pas cher, replica watches, swarovski, canada goose, moncler, moncler, thomas sabo, marc jacobs, bottes ugg, canada goose outlet, canada goose outlet, pandora jewelry, coach outlet, links of london, karen millen, moncler, toms shoes, supra shoes, louis vuitton, pandora charms, moncler, doudoune canada goose, louis vuitton, juicy couture outlet, pandora jewelry, canada goose, sac louis vuitton pas cher, louis vuitton, ugg,ugg australia,ugg italia, canada goose, moncler outlet, juicy couture outlet, hollister, moncler, ugg boots uk, moncler

7/23/2016 8:13 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home