PDA

View Full Version : NYT: Budget Office Says 10 Years of Deficits Could Total $5 Trillion


zimv20
Aug 26, 2003, 08:25 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/26/business/26CND-BUDGET.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=


The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said today that federal budget deficits could total $5 trillion over the next 10 years if discretionary spending grows in line with the economy and if Congress enacts programs strongly supported by President Bush.

The accumulated shortfall would be far higher than what the White House suggested last month, when it predicted that the budget deficit would hit $475 billion next year and decline significantly after that.

Today's estimate put the 2004 deficit at $480 billion, making the shortfall equal to about 4.2 percent of the nation's gross domestic product. That is proportionately lower than some deficits reached in the 1980's.

The new 10-year projections are hypothetical, but they are in many respects conservative. They are based primarily on the cost of three programs that President Bush and the Republican majority in Congress broadly support.

That agenda includes making almost all the tax cuts of the last three years permanent, which Congressional analysts said would cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years. It also includes the cost of a new prescription drug program for senior citizens, supported by Republicans and Democrats, that would cost $400 billion.

And it includes the cost of revising the alternative minimum tax, which under current law is expected to force tens of millions of taxpayers to pay much higher taxes as their incomes rise with inflation. That change, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, would cost an additional $400 billion.

(more)

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 27, 2003, 06:43 AM
i saw this...and i loved the white house's response - if it doesn't agree with their predetermined course of action then it's obviously worthless. nothing new there...

zimv20
Aug 27, 2003, 10:11 AM
local news reported on a bush statement regarding the report (they paraphrased it, and i'm paraphrasing them, so standard disclaimers apply):

"i'm concerned w/ people getting jobs, not numbers on a piece of paper."

nice soundbite, but i think it belies the fact that bush doesn't have the first clue what those numbers mean.

pseudobrit
Aug 27, 2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
local news reported on a bush statement regarding the report (they paraphrased it, and i'm paraphrasing them, so standard disclaimers apply):

"i'm concerned w/ people getting jobs, not numbers on a piece of paper."

nice soundbite, but i think it belies the fact that bush doesn't have the first clue what those numbers mean.

And ironically, the unemployment problem isn't going away either. But I guess everyone on the rolls is just a number too. :rolleyes:

mcrain
Aug 27, 2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
And ironically, the unemployment problem isn't going away either. But I guess everyone on the rolls is just a number too. :rolleyes:

No, everyone on the rolls is just another low paid slave for corporate America and the people who run it like the Dick Cheneys, George Bush, George Bush Jr, etc...

mactastic
Aug 27, 2003, 12:28 PM
I don't believe those numbers reflect projected spending in Iraq or Afghanistan beyond what's been allocated already. Nor does it include the effects of the next round of tax cuts. In addition, it assumes a relatively robust 3% annual growth rate over that time period; so, unless the current tax cuts stimulate us significantly more than many expect, these numbers will get worse and worse.

zimv20
Aug 27, 2003, 12:29 PM
and then there are those who've given up completely trying to find a job and who aren't even counted anymore...

zimv20
Aug 27, 2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
I don't believe those numbers reflect projected spending in Iraq or Afghanistan beyond what's been allocated already.


correct. it doesn't take into account the $1 billion/week spent in iraq. i assume the same non-counting for afghanistan.


Nor does it include the effects of the next round of tax cuts.

is there another round? i thought i heard bush say he wasn't going to push for any more.

from what i understand, the estimate assumes that the sunshine provisions on the tax cuts are deleted, something which bush is pushing for. perhaps that's what you meant by "next round."

Ugg
Aug 27, 2003, 12:33 PM
and then corporate America is exporting even more jobs overseas. India and China are booming. But, CEO salaries are rising as though there is no tomorrow.

mactastic
Aug 27, 2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
correct. it doesn't take into account the $1 billion/week spent in iraq. i assume the same non-counting for afghanistan.



is there another round? i thought i heard bush say he wasn't going to push for any more.

from what i understand, the estimate assumes that the sunshine provisions on the tax cuts are deleted, something which bush is pushing for. perhaps that's what you meant by "next round."

I wish I did. No, there is yet another round of tax cuts being talked about, probably due to be reaching a vote around election time. And from what I read, I think these numbers are projections based on the assumption that the sunset provisions will take effect. If they are continued, it will add to this number. I'll try to find some verification on this, but I think I read that somewhere.

mactastic
Aug 27, 2003, 12:47 PM
Link (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6623939.htm)

If President Bush and Congress extend tax cuts and help the elderly pay for prescription drugs, they could drive federal deficits to dangerously high levels, hurting retirees and raising interest rates, government and independent analysts said Tuesday.

Even without more tax cuts and a new prescription-drug benefit, the federal government will run up a record $480 billion deficit next year on its way to a whopping $1.4 trillion pool of red ink over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office predicted Tuesday.

The 10-year projection would more than double if current tax cuts become permanent and older Americans get subsidized drugs, the agency concluded.

mactastic
Aug 27, 2003, 01:06 PM
And now this! (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/27/sprj.irq.bremer.reut/index.html)

Iraq will need tens of billions of dollars in contributions from overseas in the next year to fund the reconstruction effort, the top U.S. civil administrator in Iraq, L Paul Bremer, said in an interview published Wednesday.

Bremer told The Washington Post that Iraqi revenue would not be enough to cover the bill for economic needs that he described as "almost impossible to exaggerate."

Explaining the huge cost of the project, Bremer said it would cost $2 billion just to meet current electrical demand and an estimated $16 billion over four years to deliver clean water to all Iraqis.

The figures, which must be added to the $4 billion the Pentagon spends each month on military operations in Iraq, offer the latest evidence that the price of the Iraqi occupation is growing substantially, The Post reported.

Tens of billions in the next year.... not good.
We better get some international help on this. I sure don't want to get stuck with this bill as a taxpayer.

simX
Aug 27, 2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
And now this! (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/27/sprj.irq.bremer.reut/index.html)



Tens of billions in the next year.... not good.
We better get some international help on this. I sure don't want to get stuck with this bill as a taxpayer.

Haha. Unfortunately, there's no reason for any other country to help out -- we went in unilaterally, and so we should pay unilaterally as well.

I also hope that I won't have to foot the bill as a taxpayer, but I'm definitely not holding my breath.

pseudobrit
Aug 27, 2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by simX
Haha. Unfortunately, there's no reason for any other country to help out -- we went in unilaterally, and so we should pay unilaterally as well.

I also hope that I won't have to foot the bill as a taxpayer, but I'm definitely not holding my breath.

No, your children will pay.

Perhaps when our whole economy collapses from the bankruptcy of America.

If Reagan maxed out the credit cards, Bush mortgaged the house. Next step: collection agencies start calling.

zimv20
Aug 27, 2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Next step: collection agencies start calling.

the US can prop up its own debt 'cuz of a historical basis on which it makes good. if world confidence in the US economy collapses, that doesn't just sink the stock market -- it will have a catastrophic effect on every aspect of the economy: trade, lending/borrowing, etc.

zimv20
Aug 27, 2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
I sure don't want to get stuck with this bill as a taxpayer.

you can thank all the bozos who supported the invasion. san felipe's famous "70%".

thanks for the links, btw.