By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The White House will project soon that this year's federal deficit will exceed $420 billion, congressional aides said, a record figure certain to ignite partisan warfare over President Bush's handling of the economy. The annual summertime analysis is expected out this Friday, said several congressional aides speaking on condition of anonymity Tuesday. That would be well after the frequently ignored legal deadline of July 15. White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton said the report will be issued when it is ready, and offered no date. Friday will be a day after the Democratic National Convention ends — a release date that would prevent presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and others at the gathering from citing its figures to criticize Bush. that's convenient 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. "It is hard to disregard the strong progress made on the economy and our fiscal situation," Kolton said Tuesday. Democrats have said Bush purposely overestimated this year's budget gap so he could take credit for improvement when the real figures came in. "The new estimate ... will set a new record of fiscal mismanagement and deficit spending," said Kerry economic adviser Gene Sperling. The federal budget year runs through Sept. 30 and has only two months to go. Last year's deficit was $375 billion, the worst ever in dollar terms. The White House has said the numbers are manageable because they only equal about 4 percent the size of the U.S. economy — well below the 6 percent ratio reached under President Reagan. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) projected in January that this year's shortfall would be $477 billion. In May, citing higher than expected revenue collections, it said it believed the red ink would be smaller but offered no figure. Two weeks ago, the Treasury Department (news - web sites) said the deficit for the first nine months of this budget year was $327 billion. That was more than 20 percent larger than the $270 billion shortfall for the same period last year. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...p_on_go_pr_wh/budget_deficit&cid=544&ncid=716 Let's Cut them Taxes!!!!!
Nothing to see here, move along...$420 billion, $450 billion--who REALLY cares about that much money?? That is nothing but half of a non-functioning missile defense system, a couple of aircraft carriers, an invasion, and a ranch in Crawford--GET OVER IT LIB-RUYLS!!
I'm sure everybody here is ecstatic that our kids and grandkids will be picking up the tab for some billionaire's new Mercedes. That's the very definition of fiscal responsibility -- run up a huge debt on luxury items and force future generations to pay for it.
Clinton played this point masterfully... "Many of us wold give up that $5,000 portion of our tax cut for more port inspections." He slammed Bush's cronyism without making it a class thing and implied is the idea that this economic policy endangers us all. I agree and this number is more evidnce.
What about Greenspan saying the reason the recession would have been worse and longer if there were no tax cuts?
Yet the cost of war, though by no means trivial, is responsible for only a small share of the deficits we face. The President’s tax cuts are a much more significant cause. Congressional Budget Office data indicate that in 2003 and 2004, the cost of enacted tax cuts is almost three times as great as the cost of war, even when the cost of increases in homeland security expenditures, the rebuilding after September 11, and other costs of the war on terrorism — including the action in Afghanistan — are counted as “war costs,” along with the costs of the military operations and subsequent reconstruction in Iraq. http://www.cbpp.org/4-29-03bud.htm
The tax cuts are not the problem. Its the stupid congress cannot stop spending money on all thier pet projects. I support the tax cuts, but I do not support the huge defecit. There is so much waste that they could just cut out if they wanted to.
1) Doesn't the President present the budget to Congress? 2) Doesn't the President have pork barrel items that he wants?
The Bush Administration on the Deficit WE DON'T HAVE A DEFICIT 2/27/01: "[We have a] balanced budget, and big surpluses…We should approach our nation's budget as any prudent family would." – President Bush WE WON'T HAVE A DEFICIT IF WE CUT TAXES ON THE WEALTHY 3/27/01: "We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." – President Bush WE HAVE A DEFICIT – BUT IT WILL BE SMALL 1/29/02: "Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term." – President Bush ACTUALLY, I ALWAYS SAID WE'D HAVE A DEFICIT… 6/7/02: "I remember campaigning in Chicago and one of the reporters said, 'Would you ever deficit spend?' I said, 'Only--only--in times of war, in times of economic insecurity as a result of a recession or in times of national emergency.' Never did I dream we'd have a trifecta." – President Bush …ACTUALLY, HE DIDN'T PREDICT THE DEFICIT 6/9/02: News media report that Bush never made this pledge on the campaign. As Tim Russert said, "We have checked everywhere and we've even called the White House as to when the president said [the trifecta caveat] when he was campaigning in Chicago, and it didn't happen." OK, WE HAVE A DEFICIT – AND THAT'S BAD 8/17/02: "We cannot go down the path of soaring budget deficits." – President Bush ACTUALLY, DEFICITS AREN'T REALLY BAD Early 2003: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." – Vice President Dick Cheney 1/3/03: "[We have] returned to an era of deficits... [But] we ought not hyperventilate about this issue." – White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels 3/8/03: The WP reported, "Daniels said the White House is not worried about 'the dimension of today's deficits, and tomorrow's for that matter.'" OK, DEFICITS ARE BAD – AND THEY NEED TO BE FIXED 2/3/03: "My Administration firmly believes in controlling the deficit and reducing it." – President Bush WE ADMIT, THE BAD DEFICIT WAS NOT CREATED BY THE WAR 2/4/03: "Even if we had never been attacked, and incurred no costs of war or recovery from September 11th…we still would have gone into deficit." – White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels I DON'T CARE WHAT THE NUMBERS SAY – WE'RE BLAMING THE BAD DEFICIT ON THE WAR 4/24/03: "This nation has got a deficit because we have been through a war." – President Bush WE REALLY TRULY CARE ABOUT THE DEFICIT 9/13/03 "I am a deficit hawk. So is the president." – Vice President Dick Cheney THE BIG BAD DEFICIT THAT WE SAY WAS CREATED BY THE WAR (BUT WASN'T) WILL BE FIXED SOON 12/10/03 "We can cut the deficit in half." – Joshua Bolten WHAT RATIONALE IS NEXT? http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=22339
We'd be spending a lot less on bullets if we would have concentrated on the real enemy (OBL) in Afghanistan and stayed out of IraQ.
A couple of points here. Others have already made the point that a lot of spending has to go to Iraq. That whole expendature could have been cut out since it was never necessary. Secondly we've been spending roughly 14% on intrest payments on the national debt. That's money that's part of the budget that isn't congress spending on any program, or anything. It's part of the budget that doesn't even reduce the debt, but just pays the interest. So if we got rid of the debt, or most of it, the spending would be greatly reduced, without cutting any programs. That 14% is larger than any other item we spend on excpet defense. The biggest spending items are not congress excess spending but the money caused by the deficit. Sure congress wastes some money on unnecessary programs, and that should be stopped. But it is by means the cheif culprit.
