Thursday, July 12, 2007

Bush Budget

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/budget/2008/

"My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire." —George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 24, 2001

In 2001 the US had a $128-billion surplus. Bush’s super-fast national debt reduction plan turned that into a $157-billion deficit by 2002. In other words he spent $285 billion to give me and millions like me a $300 refund (or about 85-cents a day extra).

“Tomorrow I'm going to talk about the size of the deficit. I'm not going to guess what that will be, but I can predict it's going to be substantially lower than it was three years ago.” ---George Bush July 12, 2007. Ohio.

Three years ago the deficit was 412 billion against a $100-billion drop in federal receipts since 2001.
From 2004 to 2005 the deficit dropped significantly from $412-billion to $318-billion. From 2005 to 2006 it dropped to $248-billion.
For 2007 the deficit is estimated to be $244-billion.
By 2012 George insists that the US will have a surplus again, of $61-billion

UPDATE: These figures of ACTUAL deficits and surplus from Page 13
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
for the benefit of anyone who thinks I might use invented statistics to make my arguments.

Now this is all very complicated stuff, I’m no economist and George Bush is a complete clod BUT….

From 2001 to 2003 we went from a surplus of $128-billion to a deficit of $377-billion (total $505-billion). Of that we can assume say $100-billion for Iraq and Afghanistan and $285-billion for tax-cuts which are the extraordinary expenditures of the period. That leaves $120-billion of “miscellaneous expenses” (assuming national debt repayment didn’t change).

Now Bush’s Budget mid-session review says (emphasis added):

“This Budget improves the timeliness and specificity of the information provided to Congress and the American public about the cost of the war"

No it doesn’t; in as much as I couldn’t find anything that referred specifically to Afghanistan or Iraq.

It shows the full cost of the war through the rest of the President’s term –and also provides detailed justifications.”

Again, no it doesn’t (as far as I could tell) though it does project increasing the DoD budget from it’s current $485-billion (-ish) to over $600-billion by 2012. (Oh, and we’ve heard all the justifications for war and they have been and are, all bullshit).

Given that there is zero chance that oil prices will [edit-only continue to rise-edit] drop (especially as the US continues to drag its feet on energy efficiency) it makes sense that Government expenditures will rise. But so will consumer costs, yet Bush somehow expects ‘reciepts’ ( otherwise known as income taxes) to rise without raising taxes—which he is totally agin’. He also has no plans to increase the tax “burden” on big business, so how will “receipts” rise? By the public paying more for taxed goods and services I assume.

And let’s not forget that Bush originally asked for something like $70 billion to get the Iraq War over and done with in one year with Iraqi oil revenues and a new free-market economy there expected to pay for the peaceful reconstruction.
These “supplemental” requests have increased each year (with every “success”) and now he’s asking for around $130-billion! Part of this increase has to do with the doubling of oil prices that his invasion has triggered and the occupation has sustained!

Add to this the assertion that “It shows the full cost of the war through the rest of the President’s term” which means he has no intention of bringing US forces home before he leaves office (but we all know that anyway). So for 2008 he’ll be asking for probably another $150-billion whilst the ‘receipts’ continue to decrease because the cost of living will continue to increase and the corporate world will maintain profits by passing increased costs to consumers and cut jobs whilst retaining their rebates and tax advantages—as long as Bush remains in power.

So where will the savings come from to drive down the deficit? Bush’s ass and our hides I reckon.

8 comments:

eyedoc333 said...

Congress needs to cut up Bush's credit cards.

Teaghan's mom said...

I hate to break it to you but I think Pickles has all his credit cards.

Unfortunately a simplistic approach is how we got into a budget deficit. Besides, the Decider isn't smart enough to coordinate and write a budget, but then he has people to do that for him. He goes to them, says, "I want to spend on war and making my friends richer." And his staff says, "Yes sir," and they go to work on a budget that will pass his fatcat chickenhawk agenda. What Congress really needs to do is initiate impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney and investigate them all for treason. Well, that and actually VETO any budget he sends to Congress.

It's obscene that he took credit for a budget surplus that President Clinton made possible. But then, we are dealing with a person that revises history as often as he blinks. And this continued bastardization of the truth is just going to cause more and more poverty. But, since that seems to be Bu$hCo's agenda - kill all the poor and brown people - he's right on schedule.

And Brit - I disagree with you on one point - Bu$h would never sacrifice his own "hide" for anyone, not even himself. He has a bevvy of Regent University students salivating at the thought of 'serving at the pleasure of the resident.' Too bad that Regent is last on the list of Tier 4 schools. FYI - there are only 4 tiers to US News college rankings. Sick sad world we live in these days.

Truth-Pain said...

5th,
Those were "projected" surpluses in 2001,... were leftover economic hangovers from the dot com bomb... , most economists say there were never any surpluses at all as they were based on projected revenues from new tech sectors that would have never played out. Your piece makes a few assumption that are not too solid. Nice read though...

sumo said...

It just makes my head spin!

5th Estate said...

TP...for your benefit I have provided the link to the ACTUAL deficitis and surplusses as provided by Govt' agencies. I had wanted to use a graphic of the table but it didn't scale legibly

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

So that takes care of your first horribly uniformed statement and assumption...

NOw the Clinton admin took a $255 billion ACTUAL deficit (1993) and and turned it into a $69 billion ACTUAL surplus (1998). By 2000 it was a $236 billion ACTUAL surplus of which approx. half was spent immdediately with the remainder intended for contignencies and opportunities.

Bush turned that remaing $126 billion ACTUAL surplus and turned it into a $158 ACTUAL deficit the next year and a $378 billion ACTUAL deficit at the end of 2003, in part becuase he had an unneccesary war to fight.

The 2006 ACTUAL deficit is $248 billion, as near as dammit to the $255 billion ACTUAL deficit Clinoton inherited from Bush41.

Now Bush43 is estimating he'll be ablt to create a surplus as near as dammit to Clinton's in the same amount of time, even though he's maintiaining a war with direct costs of over $100 billion a year until 2009 plans to increase the SEPARATE DoD budget another $100 billion by 2012, whilst oil prices (which have at least doubled since Clinton due mostly to Bush's policies) aren't likely to get any lower and will likely increase.

Given the simpla facts that broad income-tax cuts and increased military spending--the foundations of Republican ecomomic philosphy regularly produce significant deficits on that basis alone how are my assumptions that Bush's estimates which are predicated on this traditional policies are particularly suspect?

Add to the historical record the current factors of no net job growth, decreased tax base, poor overall growth (1.5%), massively increased energy costs and the additional expense of a war of choice that Bush will continue until 2009, all without ANY change in his principal policies; and you seriously think my "assumptions" aren't solid?

Even if he adopted the Clinton policies there is no way he could reach a surplus in five years because of the extra expense of the war and increased energy costs--not to mention the effects that climate change may have which get absolutely no mention in his bullshit report--unless he changes his policies which he has stated he isn;t going to do.
So how he expects to generate a surplus based on continuing the types of policies that historically produce deficits, and with the added disadvatages that HIS OWN POLICIES have created beggars belief.

My assumptions are based on ACTUAL information, verifiable information, not assumption itself.

Truth-Pain said...

5th,
I'm not one to shy away from a correction. Thank you. My initial observation and "assumtion" was based on a dozen or so articles I had saved up from Slate and others delineating on how most of the projections of revenue during the months leading to the 2000 elections were based on projected market turns, not necessarily actual OMB/CBO numbers. My apologies for getting these mixed up. I never intended to harpoon your post.
I appreciate the due dilligence in informing me of my error. Cheers.

5th Estate said...

TP...

I had intended to provide a graphic of the source of my figures but it became illegible so I just "read them off". I thought I'd found the info via the one link I did provide, but going back ( due to your prodding as it were) I'd clearly taken a different route. So my post is now re-inforced.

Opinion or conjecture are worthless without evidence to back them up. Ansd argument based on false "evidence" or others conjecture then presented as fact is an argument built on sand.
I think I've been consistent in using reliable information in my posts over the years when making particular arguments and expressing opinions.

Even when links aren't provided anyone can do their own research to confirm or dispute some poece of information predicating an argument so that factor alone demands that I be honest--and your earlier comment forced me to better substantiate my post, so that's a good thing. Thanks.

Carl said...

A good graphic for this:

http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm

Of the current national debt, which inclding compounded interest hovers around $8 trillion dollars, Bush pere et fils account for 31%, not including compounded interest.