Leap in Deficit Instead of Fall Is Seen for U.S.

[kskiska]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 26 — Even if the economy rebounds strongly over the next few years, the federal budget deficit could climb for the rest of the decade if Congress adopts proposals strongly supported by President Bush, the Congressional Budget Office said today.

Offering a sharp contrast to recent projections by the White House, which had said the budget deficit would hit $475 billion next year and decline significantly after that, the Congressional report warns that annual deficits could rise rather than fall.

The nonpartisan office said the deficit would be $480 billion next year but could reach a cumulative total of $5.8 trillion by 2013.

Administration officials quickly dismissed the Congressional projections as too speculative to take seriously, noting that long-term budget projections have been notoriously inaccurate.

But the new analysis is nonetheless based on fairly cautious assumptions. It assumes that economic growth will surge next year and remain solid for the rest of the decade. The biggest reason for potentially much higher deficits is the added cost of legislation that both the White House and the Republican majority in Congress support.

more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/27/politics/27BUDG.html?hp

[delete_bush]

1. Bush is a Red (inker)

"The only thing we know about 10-year projections is that they are terribly, terribly wrong," Mr. Duffy (spokesman for the White House budget office) said today. "In 1993, 10 years ago today, C.B.O. did not predict that in the late 1990's we would have a surplus."

Maybe somone should inform the aptly named Duffy that during the time period in question THERE WAS A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT!

Perhaps * is terribly, terribly wrong for the economy and everything else he touches.

[demconfive]

2. Ummm....

Didn't the White House use 10 year projections to justify the first round of tax cuts?

[hadrons]

5. 10 years ago today, C.B.O. did not predict that in the late 1990's ...

well duh, stupid; the C.B.O. isn't in the business of forecasting what the economic climate will be, just what is projected to happen to the budget if things stay as is ... in fact, these projections are probably too kind

"The only thing we know about 10-year projections is that they are terribly, terribly wrong," Mr. Duffy (spokesman for the White House budget office) said today.

Those 10-year projections were writen in stone when your dim-witted boss wanted to pass his unfair tax cuts

[radfringe]

3. According to other projections

it could hit 7+trillion by 2013

Congressional Budget Office report is based on the assumption that the sunset clauses on the whistleass's taxcuts will go into effect... and the Alternative Mimimum Tax is not "fixed"

Congressional Budget Office Report
1 The Budget Outlook

If current laws and policies do not change, the federal government will incur a total budget deficit of $401 billion this year and $480 billion in 2004, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects (see Table 1-1). Although those deficits represent record levels in dollar terms, at about 4 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) they are smaller than the deficits of the mid-1980s (see Figure 1-1). In the absence of further legislative changes, the recent surge in deficits will peak in 2004, CBO estimates; after that, annual deficits will decline steadily before giving way to surpluses early in the next decade. Deficits are projected to total $1.4 trillion over the next five years. The five years after that show a small net surplus (less than $50 billion) in CBO's latest projections.

----------

watch for the spin on deficit numbers when the whistass uses percentage of GDP instead of real dollar amounts to try to wiggle around the issue

4% of GDP WASN'T acceptable during the 80's into the 90's - why is it acceptable now?

In 2000 we had $11-billion dollar SURPLUS, now we are looking at $5-7 trillion dollar deficit. do the math

[Mari333]

6. 2013 is the year Im supposed to finally get SS widows benefits

I guess I can now bend over and kiss my ass goodbye..there wont be any SS monies for anyone.

[priller]

4. AMT change will be the first thing to go

Middle-class taxpayers will get screwed again.

[Bandit]

7. And money spent on Iraq is not even included ~ More phony stats

It is unbelievable that No one is bringing up this fact. Iraq expenditures are not included in the budget.

[GreenGreenLimaBean]

8. better lock in that mortgage rate,

cause we will be seeing 10% or higher rates by '04.

[gasperc]

9. economy can't grow with a 2ton weight tied to it's ass

that's why the economy kept dragging through the 80's and into the 90's, things didn't turn around till the deficit started getting reduced

[TahitiNut]

10. Most people seem to miss the real point.

The mission of the CBO is, first and foremost, to assess the projected impact of legislation on the federal balance sheet. Let's get this very clear. They are not required, nor do they pretend, to accurately forecast the economic conditions or the actual "bottom line". What they're required to do is make comparative projections. Thus, when budget projections are compared, the budget impact of legislation is fairly accurately portrayed. Therefore, whether a projection accurately portrays the actual surplus/deficit is not very consequential.

Let's try this another way.

• Let's assume " A_n " is (theoretically) the actual budget surplus/deficit for any future year "n" and " B_n " is the CBO's projected budget surplus/deficit for that same year.
• Then let's assume " A_n' " is (theoretically) the actual budget surplus/deficit for any future year "n" and " B_n' " is the CBO's projected budget surplus/deficit for that same year, including certain legislation.
• Any errors between the actual and projected (e.g. " A_n - B_n ") attributable to inaccuracies in the underlying economic assumptions will be identical, and will cancel out when assessing the net impact of legislation.
• In other words, " A_n' - A_n " (the actual financial impact of legislation) will be very, very close to " B_n' - B_n " (the projected/forecast financial impact of legislation).

This is where the (so-called) news media "bury the lead". When the same process of projecting the budget surplus/deficit yields a change of nearly $16 trillion when the GOP's Fascist Tax Giveaways are included, then it's a valid and fairly accurate portrayal of the size of the rape and pillage of the Bushoilini Madminstration.

In effect, they've "redistributed" something greater than one entire year's GDP from the poor and middle class to the wealthiest 1%!!!
That's a fucking HUGE looting of the federal treasury!
And it doesn't even include the effects of changes at the state and local levels!


On edit: You can apply the same understanding to the measures of unemployment. Whether or not you think the 'process' of counting the unemployed is accurate, the net change in the number counted will be far more accurate. Thus, whether you think the change was from 5 million unemployed to 8 million unemployed ir it was from 9 million unemployed to 12 million unemployed, the difference of 3 million more unemployed people is the same.