PDA

View Full Version : Hey Sec....did you miss this one?


JustRalph
01-15-2005, 01:10 AM
Hey Sec....when you were scouring the Net for articles on wasteful Republicans, did you miss this article?

http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow.asp



January 13, 2005, 2:20 p.m.
Psst, the Deficit’s Shrinking
Why won’t anyone say it?

Here’s one story you won’t find on tomorrow’s front pages: “The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Shrinking Rapidly.” The headline would be accurate, but the mainstream media is much more interested in talking down this booming economy than telling it like it is.

This week’s Treasury report on the nation’s finances for December shows a year-to-date fiscal 2005 deficit that is already $11 billion less than last year’s. In the first three months of the fiscal year that began last October, cash outlays by the federal government increased by 6.1 percent while tax collections grew by 10.5 percent. When more money comes in than goes out, the deficit shrinks.

At this pace, the 2005 deficit is on track to drop to $355 billion from $413 billion in fiscal year 2004. As a fraction of projected gross domestic product, the new-year deficit will descend to 2.9 percent compared with last year’s deficit share of 3.6 percent.

Wire reports are loaded these days with accounts of an expanded trade gap (driven mostly by slower exports to stagnant European and Japanese economies, along with higher oil imports from the peak in energy prices). But there’s not a single report I can find that mentions the sizable narrowing in U.S. fiscal accounts. Behind this really big budget story is the even-bigger story: The explosion in tax revenues has been prompted by the tax-cut-led economic growth of the past eighteen months.

With 50 percent cash-bonus expensing for the purchase of plant and equipment, productivity-driven corporate profits ranging around 20 percent have generated a 45 percent rise in business taxes. At lower income-tax rates, employment gains of roughly 2.5 million are throwing off more than 6 percent in payroll-tax receipts. Personal tax revenues are rising at a near 9 percent pace.

Meanwhile, in the wake of strong stock market advances over the last two years, non-withheld revenues from individuals — including investor dividends and capital gains that are now taxed at only 15 percent — have jumped by over 14 percent.

Following the Clinton cap-gains tax cut and savings expansion bill of 1997, investment-related tax collections led to bull-market budget surpluses in the pre-9/11 period of 1997-2001. However, despite the flood of new revenues, this year’s federal budget is still overspending. Domestic spending on non-entitlement programs (excluding homeland defense) is rising at a 4.1 percent rate. That’s more than twice the pace of core inflation. But this may be changing.

According to the Washington Post, the Bush budget totals planned for fiscal year 2006 may be essentially unchanged from the totals for fiscal year 2005 (excluding defense and homeland security). According to reporter Jonathan Weisman, the administration’s first really tough budget request (due out next month) “would freeze most spending on agriculture, veterans and science, slash or eliminate dozens of federal programs, and force more costs, from Medicaid to housing, onto state and local governments.”

The rapid growth of federal health care and other entitlements would also be slowed markedly. Though the numbers are not yet available, this sounds a bit like Ronald Reagan’s tax-cutting budget of 1981. In addition to reducing the top personal tax rate to 50 percent from 70 percent, the Gipper proposed budget cuts that would be worth nearly $100 billion in today’s dollars.

Of course, the political screaming over the forthcoming budget has already begun. A passel of Democrats and at least one Republican, Sen. Craig Thomas of Wyoming, have written a protest letter to Josh Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget. Former-Gov. John Engler of Michigan, a Republican and the current president of the National Association of Manufacturers, has pledged to fight the elimination of various protectionist subsidies to his member firms.

However, Sen. Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who is the current chair of the upper chamber’s budget committee and a long-time Bush ally, is set to support the administration’s new budget discipline. This includes, by the way, Bush’s plan to reduce Social Security benefits by replacing wage indexing with a price-level formula and extending the retirement age — one or the other, or both — in return for personal saving accounts.

By the way, Treasury Secretary John Snow just completed a Wall Street tour where leading bond traders told him not to sweat the transitional costs for personal accounts. The traders said that an additional $100 billion a year over the next decade for transitional financing will be easily manageable. “A rounding error,” one senior trader told Snow.

A supply-side tax-reform movement, a shrinking budget deficit, newfound spending discipline, and a determination to confound conventional wisdom by reforming Social Security has George W. Bush’s second term off to a roaring start — even before he is officially sworn in.

— Larry Kudlow, NRO’s Economics Editor, is host with Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Kudlow & Cramer (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/TV_Info/P12129.asp) and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow’s Money Politic$ (http://www.moneypolitics.net/).

sq764
01-15-2005, 01:15 AM
It obviously wasn't in the "Why Do We Keep Losing" Newsletter he gets..

ljb
01-15-2005, 08:26 AM
from jr's post
January 13, 2005, 2:20 p.m.
Psst, the Deficit’s Shrinking
Why won’t anyone say it?

Not sure, but I heard they are running the war and SS off budget?
Also heard Bush plans to submit a 2006 budget with a 50 percent reduction. Some expenditures will be just eliminated. This could prove to be interesting.

formula_2002
01-15-2005, 09:22 AM
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow.asp

— Larry Kudlow, NRO’s Economics Editor, is host with Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Kudlow & Cramer (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/TV_Info/P12129.asp) and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow’s Money Politic$ (http://www.moneypolitics.net/).

Is it the source or the sauce that makes this palatable to you?
I think the answer lays with Bacchus.
“National Review”? “Kudlow”? On guard men!!
Oh to be solidly Democrat or Republican. What a wonderful mind set it must be...Impervious to common sense and reason.

Note the google advertisements!!

Tom
01-15-2005, 10:42 AM
JR, typical responses: Change the subject.

When we had the surplus, SS was on life support and Bush was a bad guy for not fixing it. Now he is fixing it and he is a bad guy. Hehehe. This going to be a great 4 years - watching these guys do a real life impersonation of that knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail (I cut off your arm! No you didn't!)
:D :D :D

The funnisest part about it is most dems will do this for 4 years instead of re-building their party and then they will lose again in 2008.

sq764
01-15-2005, 01:32 PM
from jr's post
January 13, 2005, 2:20 p.m.
Psst, the Deficit’s Shrinking
Why won’t anyone say it?

Not sure, but I heard they are running the war and SS off budget?
Also heard Bush plans to submit a 2006 budget with a 50 percent reduction. Some expenditures will be just eliminated. This could prove to be interesting.
Kerry tried to divert when he had no answer.. You see how it turned out for him :(

boxcar
01-15-2005, 01:49 PM
LJB wrote:

Not sure, but I heard they are running the war and SS off budget?
Also heard Bush plans to submit a 2006 budget with a 50 percent reduction. Some expenditures will be just eliminated. This could prove to be interesting.

What would really be interesting is if you told us that you "heard" this from one of Hcap's figments of his imagination (e.g. an "alien") who is living in your garage, or in one of your shoe boxes. Tell us plainly: Is an alien whispering these things in your ears these days?

Boxcar

Secretariat
01-15-2005, 06:06 PM
from jr's post
January 13, 2005, 2:20 p.m.
Psst, the Deficit’s Shrinking
Why won’t anyone say it?

Not sure, but I heard they are running the war and SS off budget?
Also heard Bush plans to submit a 2006 budget with a 50 percent reduction. Some expenditures will be just eliminated. This could prove to be interesting.

Obviously JR only read the headline of his conservative mag post and not the article: Here's from his own article:

"According to the Washington Post, the Bush budget totals planned for fiscal year 2006 may be essentially unchanged from the totals for fiscal year 2005 (excluding defense and homeland security). "

Please notice the reference to excluding "defense and homeland security". Now I don't know about you but I have a hint that those two items are going to be a little more than 11 billion. The continued presense of our troops in Iraq are going to increase in costs. The Ukrainians and Dutch are pulling out which mean we pick up more of the troop deployments and more of the cost. If anyone thinks this election is going to stop the violence in Iraq they're living in a pipe dream world. Evan Allawi has said a presence wil lbe needed for a decade. It would seem we have to pay for that. So I think it might be nice to factor that into the budget and those deficit figures. My post was not on the 400 billion plus record defiict, but the record plus trade deficit. Bush keeps setting records doesn't he.

JustRalph
01-15-2005, 07:22 PM
Sec. Read what you want into the article. You are still a troll..........

Secretariat
01-16-2005, 10:51 AM
Sec. Read what you want into the article. You are still a troll..........

Ah, the name calling when you've got nothing to address my post. Predictable.

JustRalph
01-16-2005, 11:07 AM
Ah, the name calling when you've got nothing to address my post. Predictable.


I think it was pretty obvious that you took one thing from the article and I took another, and You want to turn it into a classic troll fueled discussion. You aren't worth it. so troll on ...........I won't participate with you. I think those who comprehend at an 8th grade level and above can take what they want from articles I post, and the discussions I participate in. It's the nature of a board like this. You discuss and read, and then discuss............but you are so blinded by your hatred that you are becoming a one act play that closed in November........but one of the low level understudies is still doing it out back in the alley behind the theatre.

Secretariat
01-16-2005, 05:05 PM
You're the one calling me a troll, and yet I'm accused of being on an 8th grade level? Thank you JR.

Equineer
01-25-2005, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by JustRalph,
January 13, 2005, 2:20 p.m.
Psst, the Deficit's Shrinking
Why won't anyone say it?

...the 2005 deficit is on track to drop to $355 billion from $413 billion in fiscal year 2004.Probably because it is NOT true.

Federal budget years begin on October 1st and end on September 30th. You conveniently forgot that $25 billion approved last fall and $80 billion about to be approved in February are 2005 budget items. The $413 billion 2004 deficit included war costs for Afghanistan and Iraq. When these cost items for 2005 are included, even the White House admits the deficit will NOT shrink.

WASHINGTON (Reuters, 1/12/2005) - The White House estimated on Tuesday that the U.S. budget deficit for 2005, including an extra $80 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan operations, will total $427 billion.

Bush promised to cut the budget deficit in half between 2005 and 2009. This deficit increase from $413 billion in 2004 to $427 billion in 2005, is hardly a step in the right direction since it includes all of the cost-cutting measures formulated by the White House, such as cuts in veteran benefits.

Secretariat
01-25-2005, 10:04 PM
Probably because it is NOT true.

Federal budget years begin on October 1st and end on September 30th. You conveniently forgot that $25 billion approved last fall and $80 billion about to be approved in February are 2005 budget items. The $413 billion 2004 deficit included war costs for Afghanistan and Iraq. When these cost items for 2005 are included, even the White House admits the deficit will NOT shrink.

WASHINGTON (Reuters, 1/12/2005) - The White House estimated on Tuesday that the U.S. budget deficit for 2005, including an extra $80 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan operations, will total $427 billion.

Bush promised to cut the budget deficit in half between 2005 and 2009. This deficit increase from $413 billion in 2004 to $427 billion in 2005, is hardly a step in the right direction since it includes all of the cost-cutting measures formulated by the White House, such as cuts in veteran benefits.

Thanks Eq for posting this. These guys generally don't believe the CBO or even Bush's own figures.

The amazing thing about this projected deficit is (a) it doesn't factor in making the tax cuts permanent - a Bush pledge (b) it doesn't include Bush's SS privatzation plan which is estimated to increase the budget deficit over a a couple trillion (c) iot doen't anticipate future years in iraq or iran or whatever (d) it doesn't include rebuilding the military arsenals which are depleted (e) it doesn't include fully funding No Child Left Behid but it does include cutting medicaid.

Do you really believe he will be cutting the deficit in half by 2009 as he says? This is the land some of the people here live in like SQ, Lefty, and JR.

Equineer
01-25-2005, 11:07 PM
Sec, thanks for your reply... it prompted me to notice my typo... I should have dated the Reuters' story as today, 1/25/2005. Since $427 billion is only the current White House deficit news release (and a new all-time deficit record), we shouldn't forget the administration has eight more months to let more bad deficit news trickle out after the horse has left the barn, so to speak.