What Happens If a Deficit Falls and Almost No One Reports It?

[red states rule]

U.S. Tax Revenues Up 9.7% Through Four Months, Deficit Down 57%; U.S. Media Outlets Mostly Ignore the news


The Federal Budget Deficit: Bush Benchmark Achieved, Ignored
Filed under: Economy, MSM Biz/Other Bias, MSM Biz/Other Ignorance, Taxes & Government — TBlumer @ 9:02 am
….. and the best may be yet to come.
___________________________________

A huge point has been virtually if not totally ignored since the announcement on Friday that the reported federal deficit for the fiscal year that ended a week ago was $250 billion — The Bush Administration has done what it said it would do about the deficit three years ago, and has done it a full three years early, i.e., in half the time predicted.

This continues what has been a very difficult past few years have been for those who deride supply-side economics. If Washington, with a little help from the states, lets the supply-side engine continue to chug along for next several years, the results could be so positively stunning that it would become impossible for supply-side detractors in touch with any part of the real world to hang on to the comfort of their static-analysis fantasyland.

But first, let’s recap what has happened in the past three fiscal years:

Tax receipts have soared by over 35% (with 5.5%, 14.5%, and 11.7% increases in fiscal 2004, 2005, and 2006, respectively) from $1.78 trillion to $2.41 trillion (2004 and 2005 results can be found at Page 2 of this PDF from the Congressional Budget Office [CBO]; 2006’s receipts were estimated by adding the $253 billion revenue increase reported near the end of this longer story).
Despite the costs of the Iraq War, the rest of the War on Terror, Katrina relief, and not nearly enough control over other spending, the administration has accomplished its goal of cutting the reported deficit in half by the time it leaves office a full three years early (fiscal 2009, which ends a little less than three years from now, is the last budget over which the Bush Administration will have responsibility). Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press reported on the deficit yesterday (commented on here) but “somehow” missed this little nugget of good news, even though he reported on the administration’s original fiscal 2004 promise in a “not going to happen” manner just under a year ago on October 14, 2005 (last two paragraphs at link) –

The White House has set a goal of cutting the deficit in half from the $521 billion prediction for 2004 that it issued at the beginning of that year. (the original goal was therefore set sometime before October 1, 2003, the beginning of the 2004 fiscal year — Ed.)

The administration says it is still on track to reach that $260 billion goal by the time Bush leaves office. But administration budget projections leave out the long-term costs of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, and have yet to be updated with cost estimates of hurricane relief.

Even with all of those costs included, the administration has reached its goal. How ’bout that, Andrew?

Economic growth has averaged an annualized 3.89% during the past 13 quarters since the 2003 Bush tax cuts were passed. This is a record that for all practical purposes matches the best seven years of the Clinton administration, but trails the best seven years of the Reagan-Bush 41 and Kennedy Johnson eras, when more aggressive tax cuts were enacted
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/10/08...sion-accomplished-perhaps-a-lot-more-to-come/

 

[Delbert]

for starters, it sounds like they stole 177 billion from social security surplusses. This money should be invested for future SS liabilities.

Tax revenues soared due to the massive amount of liquidity
thats being injected into the economy. Big corporate profits
and profits from an over-inflated stock market, etc., led to better
tax revenues.

None of this rosy scenario is due to federal spending restraints or
any kind fiscal responsibility. This country is running full speed
toward the edge of the cliff.

 

[red states rule]

for starters, it sounds like they stole 177 billion from social security surplusses. This money should be invested for future SS liabilities.

Tax revenues soared due to the massive amount of liquidity
thats being injected into the economy. Big corporate profits
and profits from an over-inflated stock market, etc., led to better
tax revenues.

None of this rosy scenario is due to federal spending restraints or
any kind fiscal responsibility. This country is running full speed
toward the edge of the cliff.

There has been no social security "trust fund" for a long time. I do believe the Dems in Congress did that

Second, the tax cuts (that Dems said would cripple the economy) have pulled the economy out of the Clinton recession, got the economy thru 9-11, helped companies expand, hired new workers who are paying taxes, and caused huge economic growth which has increased revenue to record heights

The deficit has shrunk over the last four years and I am not surprised to see Dems cannot understand how lower taxes increases revenue to the government

 

[Delbert]

yes they have been raiding SS for a while now.
But reporting the deficit base on raiding SS is just wrong.
It doesnt matter if they have been doing it in the past or not.


I do agree that tax cuts can stimulate the economy and produce higher tax revenue.
But no one is doing anything about excessive spending.
I always hoped repubs would fix the problem, when they took control of congress. (1994?)
It has only gotten worse. In my eyes there is very little difference (fiscally) between dems and reps.

 

[red states rule]

yes they have been raiding SS for a while now.
But reporting the deficit base on raiding SS is just wrong.
It doesnt matter if they have been doing it in the past or not.


I do agree that tax cuts can stimulate the economy and produce higher tax revenue.
But no one is doing anything about excessive spending.
I always hoped repubs would fix the problem, when they took control of congress. (1994?)
It has only gotten worse. In my eyes there is very little difference (fiscally) between dems and reps.

I agree the spending is insane, but Dems will make it even worse

Pres Bush send a budget totaling nearly $3 trillion and guess what? It is not enough. Dems are whining about "cuts" when the program is getting MORE money then last year

SS is dying and libs answer? Raise taxes! What an original idea from the left. Throw more money at the problem.

 

[boedicca]

This is an easy one - the Former Elite Major Media On The Skids do not want to admit that the Bush Tax Cuts stimulated economic activity.

January is generally a good month, however, as people make estimated tax payments.

 

[red states rule]

This is an easy one - the Former Elite Major Media On The Skids do not want to admit that the Bush Tax Cuts stimulated economic activity.

January is generally a good month, however, as people make estimated tax payments.

To the liberal media and Dems, allowing people to keep more of the money they earn is a sin

To the liberal media and Dems the government is much more efficient in spending your money then you are

 

[boedicca]

Yes, if one's definition of Efficiency is Buying Votes.

 

[red states rule]

Yes, if one's definition of Efficiency is Buying Votes.

With the growing economy and shrinking deficit, libs will STILL try to tell the voters tax increases are needed.

Libs never need a reason to raise taxes, if the have to they will create another crisis

 

[boedicca]

You mean like "The Debate Is Over" Global Warming....errrrr Climate Change Crisis?

 

[red states rule]

You mean like "The Debate Is Over" Global Warming....errrrr Climate Change Crisis?

To the liberal media if you do not buy into the global warming crap you are like a holocaust denier

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...es/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/

 

[boedicca]

I saw that a couple of days ago. Ellen Goldman is truly whacked.

 

[red states rule]

I saw that a couple of days ago. Ellen Goldman is truly whacked.

She is a liberal

Situation normal

 

[Delbert]

interest on the national debt is the third largest expenditure
of the federal gov't. Health and human services and defense
are 1 and 2.
Interest on the debt is approaching 500B/yr., I believe.

You can argue rep or dem if you want, but neither one
will ever fix this problem. Republicans used to talk a good game,
they used to talk about a balanced budget amendment, and
fiscal responsibility, ....then they got power, and never had the
ba11s to push spending cuts.

fiscally reps=dems

 

[red states rule]

interest on the national debt is the third largest expenditure
of the federal gov't. Health and human services and defense
are 1 and 2.
Interest on the debt is approaching 500B/yr., I believe.

You can argue rep or dem if you want, but neither one
will ever fix this problem. Republicans used to talk a good game,
they used to talk about a balanced budget amendment, and
fiscal responsibility, ....then they got power, and never had the
ba11s to push spending cuts.

fiscally reps=dems

As I aid, spending under Republicans was insane. Spending under Dems (unless Pres Bush dusts off the veto pen) will be much worse. Dems are already sayin a $2.9 trillion budget is not enough. Dems are now bellowing for tax increases (nothing new)

The only answer is the line item veto. All preisdnets can cut out the pork from spending bills (both sides do that) and with Pres Bush's recent SC Judges, it will pass this time

 

[red states rule]

interest on the national debt is the third largest expenditure
of the federal gov't. Health and human services and defense
are 1 and 2.
Interest on the debt is approaching 500B/yr., I believe.

You can argue rep or dem if you want, but neither one
will ever fix this problem. Republicans used to talk a good game,
they used to talk about a balanced budget amendment, and
fiscal responsibility, ....then they got power, and never had the
ba11s to push spending cuts.

fiscally reps=dems

This writer at USA today is in big trouble for reporting the good news



Federal deficit shrinks due to record tax collections
Updated 2/12/2007 5:34 PM ET



WASHINGTON (AP) — The deficit for the first four months of the current budget year is down sharply from the same period a year ago as the government continues to benefit from record levels of tax collections.
The Treasury Department reported Monday that the deficit for the budget year that began Oct. 1 totals $42.2 billion, down 57.2% from the same period a year ago.

The amount of revenues collected from October through January were up 9.7% from the same period a year ago, climbing to a record level for the period of $834.1 billion.

Government spending also set a record for the period, but the growth was a slower 2.1%, pushing the total to $876.3 billion for the first four months of the current budget year.

The continued strong growth in revenues reflects the record profits corporations have been recording in recent years and low levels of unemployment, which means more Americans are working and paying taxes.

For the full year, the Congressional Budget Office is forecasting that the budget deficit will shrink to around $200 billion. The deficit for the 2006 budget year, which ended last Sept. 30, was $247.7 billion, the lowest in four years.

In the budget it sent Congress last week, the administration was less optimistic than the CBO about the current budget year, forecasting a deficit of $244.2 billion.

However, the administration's February forecasts have in recent years overshot the actual deficit, allowing the administration to take credit for better-than-expected results.

Bush's budget laid out a plan to eliminate the deficit entirely by 2012, three years after he has left office. But Democrats charged that this was accomplished by not dealing with major issues such as the cost of the war on terrorism beyond 2009 or a fix for the alternative minimum tax.

For January, the government ran a surplus of $38.2 billion. Spending for the month totaled $222.4 billion while revenues totaled $260.6 billion.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[red states rule]

Looks like ANOTHER records high for the Dow as the US economy continues to roll along

Alas, another bad day for the libs who keep saying how rotten the economy is

 

[Darwins Friend]

Looks like ANOTHER records high for the Dow as the US economy continues to roll along

Alas, another bad day for the libs who keep saying how rotten the economy is

Yep - if you're in certain portions of the market - it's all roses, but don't try to tell that to some folks over at Chrysler when their pink slips come.

Wake me up when the surplus reaches the level it was in December of 2000.

 

[glockmail]

As I aid, spending under Republicans was insane. Spending under Dems (unless Pres Bush dusts off the veto pen) will be much worse. Dems are already sayin a $2.9 trillion budget is not enough. Dems are now bellowing for tax increases (nothing new)

The only answer is the line item veto. All preisdnets can cut out the pork from spending bills (both sides do that) and with Pres Bush's recent SC Judges, it will pass this time

We don't need the line item veto. All a Prez has to do is announce to Congress, that if they pass a bill with any unrelated crap in it it will get vetoed. After that happens a few times Congress will stop bundling bills.

 

[red states rule]

Yep - if you're in certain portions of the market - it's all roses, but don't try to tell that to some folks over at Chrysler when their pink slips come.

Wake me up when the surplus reaches the level it was in December of 2000.

Let me know how your 401K has done in the last five years. The economic numbers are equal to, or better then, Clinton

As far as Chrysler, the unions did for them what they did for GM