This is BS!!! Bush didn't get into office till 2001.

You saying Bush's tax cuts did not change the financial situation of the government? Are you stupid, or just on drugs?

This is BS!!! Bush didn't get into office till 2001. You saying Bush's tax cuts did not change the financial situation of the government? Are you stupid, or just on drugs?

*Your* the stupid one not me! How could Bushs tax cuts affect the bottom line of the year 1999 when he didn't get into office until 2001! Get real and do your math homework.

Even the near-term projections being made in 1999 turned out to have been wildly wrong. Due to your beloved Bush.

gideon MacLeish

How did you determine that $8,500 per person is too high? Yes there is about $25 Billion of pork in the Federal budget which is the highest it has ever been . Why do the Republicans not remove it. They have control of Congress and the White House. Remove it and we are still about $450 Billion in the red!

Did you forget that Bush was in office in 2001 and NOT Clinton?

No, I didn't. But you apparently forgot that the FY 2001 budget passed under Clinton -- not GWB.

How could Bushs tax cuts affect the bottom line of the year 1999 when he didn't get into office until 2001! Get real and do your math homework.

Hey doc, you misread the previous posts...an easy mistake to make.

The topic was budget **projections** made in 1999. Not about the 1999 budget itself.

Daiwa wrote at 2/22/2005 3:24:27 PM:

Even the near-term projections being made in 1999 turned out to have been wildly wrong.

And I should have emphasized near-term in that reply. The point was not whether the projection was for a deficit or a surplus or who was going to be tagged with the blame or credit. The point is projections, even near-term projections, are notoriously unreliable and almost always wrong when you get past one or 2 years. Using 20 to 50 year projections may be academically impressive but of little to no help in the debate. Principles and practical political realities will always dictate. Congress is the ultimate Church of What's Happenin' Now, with the occasional glance up at the future.

Cheers,
Daiwa

CE BLOG PRéSENTERA MON CHER MOI MES DESSINS MES VACANCES MAIS AUSSI JE NE VOUS DIS PAS TOUT IL Y AURA AUSSI DES .........(CE CERA CADEAU A CELUI QUI VIENDRA VOIR POUR DéCOUVRIR CE CADEAU ET BIEN D4AUTRES CHOSES JE SUIS UN PASSIONN2 DE DRAGON BALL VOUS Y VéRER MES BEAUX DESSINS AUSSSI . BONNE DéCOUVERTES DE MES CHEFS D4OEUVRES

How did you determine that $8,500 per person is too high?

Because if the tax burden were evenly distributed, my family would be responsible for ove $60,000. Personally, I KNOW that we could have a more efficient government than we do for that amount of money.

There is FAR more than $25 billion in pork; I addressed in a previous blog several departments that could and SHOULD be cut because they are redundant. We're overspending, plain and simple.

The fiscal crisis being created by continually spending more than we tax could result is very large tax increases on the wealthy when it becomes clear we have gone ntoo far into debt

Too far into debt? Fiscal crisis? This is NONSENSE. In 2004 the deficit as a percentage of the GDP was 3.5%, in 1943 it was over 30%, in 1992 it was 4.5% and 1993, 3.8%. Hardly looks untenable. The deficit (and it's interest) is lost in the noise of discretionary and non-discretionary spending (which is what I believe Drag was trying to state with his graph). In addition, having a balanced budget is NOT linked with having no deficit. It is COMMON (at least if you consider every President since 1920) to increase deficit spending during a recession. Additionally, tax cuts were MORE than justified. Personal income taxes as a share of GDP, in 2000, was at it's record HIGH (2% above the long term average, which, since 1950, had been about 8%).

The Feds spend too much, and they spend on line items they have no business spending on, that's the problem.

Bush has added to this debt at a faster rate than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT in history

Also NONSENSE. From 2001 to 2002 (the largest increase during GW) the rate was a -2.8% of GDP. From 1941 to 1942 it was -10% and from 1942 to 1943 it was -16%.

How did we get here? Clinton era continuous cutting of defense (which is how he achieved his "surplus") certainly contributed. When Clinton was done, discretionary defense spending was down to 3% of GDP and defense spending was at it's lowest since pre-WW II, helping to create an environment that is difficult to manage militarily. IMHO, 3% of GDP is not adequate. We are just now getting back to defense spending at 1995 levels. Clinton also spent like a mad man in his first term, and despite defense cutting, spent at higher rates (20.7% of GDP, 1995) than the feds are currently spending at (19.8% of GDP, 2004) [no's not adjusted for cyclical contributions]. GW has not helped either, mandatory spending has gone up since 2001 (in 2000 and 2001 mandatory spending under GW was at, or below, the Clinton era numbers) with the largest contributor being, surprise surprise, Medicare/Medicaid. If defense and mandatory spending had just been held at 1994/95 levels, adjusted for inflation, 2/3rds of the budget deficit (of 2004) wouldn't even be there (and that assumes the tax cuts still took place). Increases in the costs of the Medicare and Medicaid programs are the major contributors to budget woes (in 1980 they accounted for 18% of mandatory spending, 1990 - 26%, 2000 - 35%).

EVEN IF Congress could show a little restraint, and discretionary spending increases were capped for inflation (at around 7 - 7.5% of GDP), the rising costs of Medicare/Medicaid are going to wreak havoc as long as they outpace GDP growth. The good news is that revenues went UP almost 8% from '03 to '04 (for the first time since '99/'00) and spending stayed flat.

Doom and Gloom, fiscal crisis, blah blah - can you say liberal talking points? Try to represent SOME objectivity.

TB, you are mixing up the yearly federal deficit & the cumulative national debt. They're different things.

Not sure where you're getting your deficit vs GDP numbers, but I suggest you use this source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/sheets/hist01z2.xls

In dollars, Clinton's FY 2001 budget left GWB a record surplus to work with. GWB now has record deficits. That's a fact.

How did we get here? Clinton era continuous cutting of defense (which is how he achieved his "surplus") certainly contributed.

This is incorrect. GHWB's last budget (FY 1993) shows $291B for defense; Clinton's last budget (FY 2001) shows $305B. The low point in between was $266B in FY 1996. GHWB's average defense budget was $290B. Clinton's average defense budget was $279B. Reagan's average cold war defense budget was $253B. (All figures per http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/sheets/hist03z1.xls)

In short: Clinton did not produce a $250B surplus with an average $10B/year cut in defense spending. And many of those cuts were savings initiated by GHWB & his defense secretary Dick Cheney. For more info, see Link

When Clinton was done, discretionary defense spending was down to 3% of GDP and defense spending was at it's lowest since pre-WW II,

This stat is correct, but what's behind it -- cutting defense? Not really: As mentioned the cuts were not that steep: 10 percent from GHWB's highest to Clinton's lowest in 1996.

The GROWTH in GDP under Clinton is what's remarkable: UP a cumulative 69 percent from 6.96 trillion FY 1993 to $10.05 trillion FY 2001.

How's that for objectivity?

TB, you are mixing up the yearly federal deficit & the cumulative national debt. They're different things. Not sure where you're getting your deficit vs GDP numbers, but I suggest you use this source: Link In dollars, Clinton's FY 2001 budget left GWB a record surplus to work with. GWB now has record deficits. That's a fact.

He may be wrong about the actual numbers. But as to how Slick Willie got his surplus? He's dead on. He got it by cutting back and cutting back some more on the US military. Face it, under himour military was at an all time low!

The issue is the total debt and how much interest will that require each year. In 1980 the total debt was 909 Billion and the interest was 90 billion. Today the total debt is 7.6 Trillion and interest, with rates at 46 year low, is 330 Billion. The bush fiscal plan has a total debt by 2008 of 10 Trillion and with interest rate increasing the annual interest will be about 500 billion.

The 05 defense budget when you add the 82 Billion for Iraq is 525 Billion. The real deficit in 05 excluding the surplus in Social Security and Medicare is $675 Billion!!!! The surplus during the Clinton Admin was the result of cuts in military spending (too much) and the tax increase by Bush 41. Without both, there would not have been any surplus during the 1990's.

But as to how Slick Willie got his surplus? He's dead on. He got it by cutting back and cutting back some more on the US military.

The facts don't support that claim, doc.

Federal receipts increased. That's what balanced the budget. In other words: growth, Clinton's 1993 tax increase, & probably even GHWB's 1990 (?) tax increase were factors. Not military cuts. Not much anyway.

Repeat: GHWB's last budget (FY 1993) shows $291B for defense; Clinton's last budget (FY 2001) shows $305B. The low point in between was $266B in FY 1996. And many of those Clinton-era cuts were savings from project cuts started by GHWB & his defense secretary Dick Cheney. For more info, see Link

Social Security and Medicare are the most popular programs if ever enacted by Congress. If you and other conservatives believe that we're going to balance the budget by reducing or eliminating elements such as these, you will find very stark reality of the American voter will not tolerate such action is by its elected officials. The fiscal crisis being created by continually spending more than we tax could result is very large tax increases on the wealthy when it becomes clear we have gone ntoo far into debt. We should act before that happens for the best interest on the country.

Actually no I don't think the budget will be balanced at all because "conservatives" (like me apparently) are out of the mainstream.  So those programs won't get cut and so we'll have deficits.

The issue is the total debt and how much interest will that require each year. In 1980 the total debt was 909 Billion and the interest was 90 billion. Today the total debt is 7.6 Trillion and interest, with rates at 46 year low, is 330 Billion. The bush fiscal plan has a total debt by 2008 of 10 Trillion and with interest rate increasing the annual interest will be about 500 billion. The 05 defense budget when you add the 82 Billion for Iraq is 525 Billion. The real deficit in 05 excluding the surplus in Social Security and Medicare is $675 Billion!!!! The surplus during the Clinton Admin was the result of cuts in military spending (too much) and the tax increase by Bush 41. Without both, there would not have been any surplus during the 1990's.

As has been pointed out to you previously, the interest on the debt is not any higher now than it's traditionally been as a % of GDP. 

Talking about how much, in raw dollars, somethign costs today versus something costing in the past is like my uncle complaining that he used to be able to get ice cream for a quarter.

When talking about deficits, debt, etc. it needs to be looked at as a % of GDP.