Congress' Deficit Forecast Worsens

[conjur]

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/0...reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. budget deficit will balloon to $2.29 trillion over the next decade, a worse outlook than previously forecast according to a new report by congressional analysts, said a congressional source Tuesday.

The forecast from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which is likely to stir the election-year debate about President Bush's economic policies, is more than the $2.01 trillion outlook for 2005-2014 it gave in March for the deficit that will be created under current economic policies.

The source also said the CBO confirmed a preliminary forecast it put out in August showing an expected record deficit of $422 billion for the 2004 fiscal year.

That compares to the White House's latest deficit forecast of $445 billion for this year.

The White House no longer provides a 10-year deficit forecast.

And what was Bush's remarks yesterday? He feels problems should be confronted now and not by future generations and future Presidents?


mmm hmmmm

 

[Mursilis]

And John Kerry plans to fix this problem by proposing $226 BILLION in new spending, according to this National Taxpayer's Union study. Sure, that'll do it! :roll:
To be fair to Kerry, he has also said he'd roll back Bush's tax cuts "for the rich", which would presumably increase revenues (assuming this doesn't have an adverse effect on the economy, which is a real possibility). However, according to this tax reform paper from Kerry's own website, he'd also cut the corporate tax rate by at least 5%, and according to this Kerry statement, he'd also give the middle class a tax cut, so I don't know if Kerry's plan would, overall, result in any substantial increases in federal revenues.

Clearly, as long as both parties continue to buy votes with copious spending, and the voters DO NOT punish them for it, our system has an inherent structural flaw. The only real fix has to be some sort of structural one; i.e., a Balanced Budget Amendment, a requirement that all new spending has to have the approval of a supermajority (2/3?) of Congress, or something similar. Anybody who thinks merely changing parties in Congress is going to solve the spending problems is just kidding themselves.

 

[conjur]

Well, that's where I'm counting on the Republican-controlled Congress to keep Kerry in check.

 

[CycloWizard]

Projections for the deficit in 2014? Give me a break. They don't even have solid numbers on what the deficit is this year yet.

Analysts Revise Deficit Forecast Downward

The Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Projections for the deficit in 2014? Give me a break. They don't even have solid numbers on what the deficit is this year yet.

Analysts Revise Deficit Forecast Downward

The Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday that this election-year's federal deficit will hit a record $422 billion, a shortfall that would be smaller than analysts predicted earlier this year.

The White projected high on purpose, it's an old trick. You also need to start reading real news sources.

 

[ReiAyanami]

Projections for the deficit in 2014? Give me a break. They don't even have solid numbers on what the deficit is this year yet.

$2 trillion over 10 yrs means they expect a mere $200 billion annual deficit

that means they expect the annual deficit to drop 50% and not increase due to inflation, i'd say that was pretty generous

The White House no longer provides a 10-year deficit forecast.

what, the numbers look bad? why would they not report it. well anyway it looks like in a decade we'll be pushing -$10 trillion and we will have no children

 

[Todd33]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5530088/

Some aides said they believed the projected shortfall would be close to $450 billion, though one said it would be about $420 billion.

Either way, the White House was ready to emphasize that the figure is well below the $521 billion it projected for this year last February, and tie it to improvements in the economy.

Wow, they are making progress!

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
And John Kerry plans to fix this problem by proposing $226 BILLION in new spending, according to this National Taxpayer's Union study. Sure, that'll do it! :roll:
To be fair to Kerry, he has also said he'd roll back Bush's tax cuts "for the rich", which would presumably increase revenues (assuming this doesn't have an adverse effect on the economy, which is a real possibility). However, according to this tax reform paper from Kerry's own website, he'd also cut the corporate tax rate by at least 5%, and according to this Kerry statement, he'd also give the middle class a tax cut, so I don't know if Kerry's plan would, overall, result in any substantial increases in federal revenues.

Clearly, as long as both parties continue to buy votes with copious spending, and the voters DO NOT punish them for it, our system has an inherent structural flaw. The only real fix has to be some sort of structural one; i.e., a Balanced Budget Amendment, a requirement that all new spending has to have the approval of a supermajority (2/3?) of Congress, or something similar. Anybody who thinks merely changing parties in Congress is going to solve the spending problems is just kidding themselves.

True, but some of the best fiscal responsibility we've seen was when the presidency and the legislative branch were controoled by opposing parties. Grid lock helps to lower spending.

 

[Infohawk]

It's time for the rich in the top bracket to pony up. During WW2 the greatest generation rich honorably ponied up 91% in income tax. Today's rich would prefer to buy Hummers for themselves instead of passing it on to the folk in Vietnam dying for the oil they put in their Hummers.

 

[Tom]

For me this is the real danger of reelecting Bush. The true deficit ithis year is more like 600 billion, I believe. And I see a good possibility that they will spiral out of control.

 

[Martin]

deficits don't matter

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Tom
For me this is the real danger of reelecting Bush. The true deficit ithis year is more like 600 billion, I believe. And I see a good possibility that they will spiral out of control.

Bingo! Current deficit projections by White House lackeys and CBO INCLUDE the SS surplus. Granted Clinton lackeys used the same methodology but at least the ledger produced a positive number.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
It's time for the rich in the top bracket to pony up. During WW2 the greatest generation rich honorably ponied up 91% in income tax. Today's rich would prefer to buy Hummers for themselves instead of passing it on to the folk in Vietnam dying for the oil they put in their Hummers.

say what?

 

[StageLeft]

Well, the dems will jack up spending and pay for it with taxes, while the repubs jack up spending and pay for it with a deficit. Both parties are right on the mark. Good job!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Well, the dems will jack up spending and pay for it with taxes, while the repubs jack up spending and pay for it with a deficit. Both parties are right on the mark. Good job!

Well at least the Dems can argue that they jack up spending less (probably not historically but certainly compared to the Bush junta) while the Repug spending spree will ultimately result in MUCH higher taxes b/c spending borrowed dollars during low inflation bites compared to having to pay it back at much higher rates.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Well, the dems will jack up spending and pay for it with taxes, while the repubs jack up spending and pay for it with a deficit. Both parties are right on the mark. Good job!

I don't recall many, if any, people complaining of taxes during the boom of the 90s under Clinton...back when we ended up with fiscal surpluses for the last four fiscal years under Clinton.