That’s the size of the current projected budget deficit for this year:
The deficit for the current budget year will rise by $89 billion to above $1.8 trillion — about four times the record set just last year. The unprecedented red ink flows from the deep recession, the Wall Street bailout, the cost of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus bill, as well as a structural imbalance between what the government spends and what it takes in.
As the economy performs worse than expected, the deficit for the 2010 budget year beginning in October will worsen by $87 billion to $1.3 trillion, the White House says. The deterioration reflects lower tax revenues and higher costs for bank failures, unemployment benefits and food stamps.
For the current year, the government would borrow 46 cents for every dollar it takes to run the government under the administration’s plan. In one of the few positive signs, the actual 2009 deficit is likely to be $250 billion less than predicted because Congress is unlikely to provide another $250 billion in financial bailout money.
So it’s not all bad news.
Obama didn’t inherit most of this deficit. He created it (or rather, let Pelosi and Reid create it) with the insane porkulus bill, which wasn’t about stimulation at all, but paying off Democrat constituencies. So it’s not surprising that it’s not working. And to the degree that it’s not working, and we get less tax revenue from a shrinking economy, that’s his deficit as well.
Just for contrast, consider that 1.8 trillion was the entire federal budget in the year 2000. This is economic madness.
[Late morning update]
Obama fails the fact check:
-His assertion that his proposed budget “will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term” is an eyeball-roller for many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits the government is negotiating.
-He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.
-He pitched a remedy for Social Security’s long-term crisis that analysts say won’t fix half the problem.
Glad someone at AP is finally doing their job.
[Mid-afternoon update]
More thoughts:
President Obama continues to distance himself from this “inherited” budget deficit. But the day he was inaugurated, the 2009 deficit was forecast at $1.2 trillion — meaning $600 billion has already been added during his four-month presidency (an amount that, by itself, would exceed all 2001-07 annual budget deficits). And should the president really be allowed to distance himself from the $1.2 trillion “inherited” portion of the deficit, given that as a senator he supported nearly all policies and bailouts that created it?
The president also talks of cutting the deficit in half from this bloated level. But even after the recession ends and the troops return home, he’d still run $1 trillion deficits — compared to President Bush’s $162 billion pre-recession deficit. In other words, the structural budget deficit (which excludes the impacts of booms/recessions) would more than quintuple.
It’s a good point. What did then-Senator Obama do, if anything, to prevent any of this year’s deficit? If he’d been in charge, it would probably been even bigger, and last year’s as well.
Instapundit posted a pie chart of Federal spending a few weeks ago, to which a commenter replied (IIRC), “we’d be doing fine if we just eliminated all the entitlement programs”.
Social Security, Medicare/aid, etc manage to eat up well over half the federal budget. What would our economy look like if that money were being left with the people who actually earn it?
I know I’d have several hundred dollars per month more to invest and save (or waste as I chose).
If the deficit just increased by another $89 billion already to reach $1.8 trillion, I expect it will be up to $2 trillion by the end of the year as tax receipts continue to fall with the contracting economy. Of course, all of this makes the $17 billion in cuts announced last week even more laughable.
This country is being driven over a cliff and all we can do is talk about it? “Oh, isn’t that interesting? It’s dying? What a shame.”
Let’s fact-check Rand:
Obama didn’t inherit most of this deficit.
False. On January 7, 2009 the CBO projected a $1.2T deficit. 1.2T is 67% of 1.8T. 67% is “most”.
He created it (or rather, let Pelosi and Reid create it) with the insane porkulus bill
False. According to the CBO the spending in the ARRA for fiscal 2009 totals $107B, or 6% of the total deficit. 6% is not “most”.
Facts 2, Rand 0.
According to the CBO the spending in the ARRA for fiscal 2009 totals $107B, or 6% of the total deficit.
So, in other words, the claim that ARRA had to be passed before anyone had time to read it, because it was all emergency stimulus for this year, was a lie? You folks are going to have to learn how to keep your lies straight.
Show me where I, or anyone else for that matter, claimed that the ARRA money would all be spent in fiscal 2009. Of course, even if all $550B were spent by the end of fiscal 2009, it still would not come close to making up “most” of a $1.8T deficit.
You are the one lying in this thread, Rand.
If it wasn’t meant to be spent in 2009, then the amount that wasn’t wasn’t stimulus, and it certainly wasn’t emergency stimulus that had to be passed without reading or debate. If what you say is true, they could have passed a $107B stimulus bill. Instead they foisted a fraud on the American people that those voting on it didn’t even have time to read. And my contempt for you in defending this is boundless.
I have not defended anything in this thread. I have pointed out two egregious errors of fact in your post. You have not disputed, or corrected, those errors. Instead, having been caught in two lies, you seem to want to change the subject.
I’ll comment on your other points if and when you acknowledge those errors.
I have not defended anything in this thread.
You did at the time. You are beneath contempt.
1/3rd of the ARRA was tax cuts that the GOP insisted upon in the Bill and
then they turned around and voted against it on the floor.
Tax Cuts aren’t spending, they are revenue cuts.
1/3rd of the ARRA was tax cuts
They weren'[t “tax cuts.” They were giveaways. You’re apparently too stupid to know what a tax cut is.
You realize the $1.2T from January… was the predicted budget deficit for the coming year’s spending Jack? IE, it went up to $1.8T because Obama & Congress spent -more- then was predicted in January.
And the year isn’t even over yet.
You are beneath contempt.
For stating a fact? I’d be happy to explain why I think it was important to pass ARRA when it was passed, even though most of its spending will not take place until after fiscal 2009. But first, what about those errors?
No, for defending the ongoing mendacity, fraud and lies of this administration in general.
You post two egregious lies, don’t correct them, and now you’re accusing me of defending lies? Anything to change the subject, I suppose.
Jim, since you clearly are missing a dictionary, let me explain something to you: namely, that if you say something that’s not true, and you don’t know it’s not true when you say it, it’s _not_ a lie.
Rand finds many facts to be vile.
If you mention Bush was an alcoholic that is vile.
If you mention Cheney was a draft Dodger that’s Vile.
If you mention Bush turned surpluses into trillions of debt, That’s moronic.
Its really tragic.
> If you mention Bush turned surpluses into trillions of debt, That’s moronic.
Remind me – is Bush still president?
How much of the “Bush deficit” did Obama oppose? (Careful – if you argue that Obama’s deficit would have been smaller, Obama then gets credit for the difference between said smaller deficit and the >1.8T deficit for 2009 instead of credit for the difference between >1.8T and 1.2T.)
Not to worry, Senator Charlie Crist will bring needed reform to Washington
As shown here
Bush created Trillion dollar class deficits, and that created tremendous pressure on the Interest payments. Clinton by pushing to reduce Defense spending and by streamlining government not only was running a surplus but was paying off past bills, which was easing pressure every year in a virtous cycle.
Bush starting two wars and not raising the taxes to pay for them, has left a major problem for his successor.
Now what Obama voted for in 2005-2008, I don’t know. I know he didn’t vote for Bush’s spending plans in 2001-2005.
Bush starting two wars and not raising the taxes to pay for them, has left a major problem for his successor.
That is not the cause of the current trillion-dollar deficits. I don’t expect morons like you to be able to do the math, though.
Now what Obama voted for in 2005-2008, I don’t know. I know he didn’t vote for Bush’s spending plans in 2001-2005.
Again, only morons and economic illiterates would imagine that the cause for the current almost two-trillion-dollar deficit.
Why do you continue to fantasize that my readers care what morons think?
> Bush created Trillion dollar class deficits
> Bush starting two wars and not raising the taxes to pay for them, has left a major problem for his successor.
That’s inconsistent with the actual numbers.
Crediting Clinton with the modest surplus in 01, Bush’s deficits were around 100B in 02, < 400B in 03, just over 400B in 04, around 350B in 05, around 300B in 06, less than 200B in 07, and just over 400B in 08 (courtesy of CBO).
Andy
You should credit the 2009 deficit figures to Bush just as you
credited the 2001 one to Clinton, minus of course the ARRA which
is rightly Obama’s call.
Now be aware, the CBO numbers don’t list their ground rules,
so, part of that is uncredited surpluses to Social security
Proper accounting would have SSA as off budget because
it’s a rolling pension plan.
SSA has always distorted government bookkeeping.
“ush starting two wars and not raising the taxes to pay for them, has left a major problem for his successor.
That is not the cause of the current trillion-dollar deficits.”
pity, had the Clinton tax levels been left in, the US Government would be
debt free today.
pity, had the Clinton tax levels been left in, the US Government would be debt free today.
While the Clinton tax levels (combined with Clinton spending levels) yielded small deficits, I don’t think they would ever break even, on budget. And we would not be debt free today though debt owed to outside sources would be greatly reduced. The good times of the 1999-2001 years was due to capital gains revenue from the dotcom bubble. I don’t think the real estate bubble generated a similar revenue boost, but I could be wrong.
> You should credit the 2009 deficit figures to Bush just as you
credited the 2001 one to Clinton,
Nope. Congressional Dems delayed the 2009 budget until Obama took power. They gave it to him as a present so he owns it.
> Now be aware, the CBO numbers don’t list their ground rules,
so, part of that is uncredited surpluses to Social security
Proper accounting would have SSA as off budget because
it’s a rolling pension plan
Since Clinton got credit for that surplus, so does Bush (and so does Obama). (Removing them hurts Clinton’s numbers more than it does Bush’s.)
Besides, SSA is a general obligation, no different from other bonds, so it is properly on-budget.
Yes, benefits may have to be reduced in the future, but no one is willing to say that the federal govt will default on those loans. Or, has Jack let the cat out of the bag, that Obama is planning to stiff SSA, perhaps because he’s figured out that stiffing the Chinese or other buyers of Treasuries is a bad idea?
And, if Jack insists on giving Bush credit for a budget that didn’t pass while he was in office, Bush gets Clinton’s 2001 surplus.
However, Obama still gets TARP’s $700B. (Bush does too.)
Proper accounting would have SSA as off budget because
it’s a rolling pension plan.
You misspelled “Ponzi scheme.”
” Now be aware, the CBO numbers don’t list their ground rules,”
My bigger concern is that CBO may not be including all that
supplemental spending, and it’s not including accrued depreciation.
Now there are Lies, Damn Lies and Government accounting, so,
it’s a pretty outre subject here, but, The wearout of Army equipment
in Iraq is an off budget deferred expense that this and the next
2 administrations is stuck with.
you see if you look at Treasury Direct
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
you can see the total Treasury Debt rose 4.3 trillion as of FY 2008.
if you add TARP you are at $5 Trillion.
So, I suspect those CBO numbers are missing something.
Andy, you seem at heart to be a rational man, check these numbers
and you tell me what you think they mean.
“Projections between different groups will sometimes differ because they make different assumptions. For example, in August 2003, a Congressional Budget Office report projected a $1.4 trillion deficit from 2004 through 2013.[88]
However, a mid-term and long-term joint analysis a month later by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Committee for Economic Development, and the Concord Coalition stated that “In projecting deficits, CBO follows mechanical ‘baseline’ rules that do not allow it to account for the costs of any prospective tax or entitlement legislation, no matter how likely the enactment of such legislation may be.” The analysis added in a proposed tax cut extension and Alternative Minimum Tax reform (enacted by a 2005 act), prescription drug plan (Medicare Part D, enacted in a 2003 act), and further increases in defense, homeland security, international, and domestic spending. According to the report, this “adjusts CBO’s official ten-year projections for more realistic assumptions about the costs of budget policies”, raising the projected deficit from $1.4 trillion to $5 trillion.[89]”
I think this is why the CBO numbers are off.
I really don’t care how much of this year’s deficit Jack @ss wants to hang around Bush’s neck. Also, his statement that revenues would have continued at a high rate under Clinton’s tax rates is just an opinion since the rates changed. He states it as fact but it’s not. Bush cut taxes and revenues went up. That means we had more in our pockets and so did the government.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200
What I’m waiting for is one of these hypocrites to explain how criticizing Bush for not fully funding the war with tax increases and creating more debt is reconciled with defending Obama and his trillion dollar plus deficits for the next 10 years. These people complained about civil rights under Bush and more people are having their rights violated by Obama than under Bush. Obama is confiscating private property and taxing us into oblivion and they defend him. Useful. Idiots.
Well, if the Clinton Era surpluses had continued,
the bulk of the national debt would have been paid down. At $300 Billion a year in surplus, over 8 years, we would have taken 2.4 trillion off of the national debt. This would have had the virtuous benefit of halving interest payments on the remaining debt, which would serve to free up even more money for debt service. Perhaps in total 3 trillion of debt would have been paid off, and that would have left total interest payments debt to be $50 Billion a year, or almost noise in the system.
Instead we are faced with interest payments of $500 Billlion a year, which was almost the sum total of the average deficit of each of the bush years.
also
“Bush cut taxes and revenues went up. ”
should be matched against “Bush cut taxes and Deficits exploded”.
So much for Fiscal Conservatism.
Well, if the Clinton Era surpluses had continued,
If my aunt had testicles…
They weren’t going to continue. They were already disappearing before Bush took office, due to the popping of the dotcom bubble and the coming recession, which was made worse by 911. Tax rates were a second-order effect, but the tax rate cuts probably reduced the hit to the treasury by minimizing the downturn.
“Bush cut taxes and revenues went up. ”
should be matched against “Bush cut taxes and Deficits exploded”.
Bush didn’t cut taxes, you moron, he cut tax rates. He probably increased taxes in terms of revenue. The deficit exploded because of spending, not tax rate cuts.
Still waiting.
> The wearout of Army equipment in Iraq is an off budget deferred expense that this and the next 2 administrations is stuck with.
No, they’re not. They don’t have to replace anything and aren’t planning to.
> I suspect those CBO numbers are missing something.
Good for you. However, “missing” doesn’t tell us that more complete numbers would result in a conclusion significantly different from “Obama’s spending makes Bush look like a piker.”
Yes, Bush spent too much, but it’s hard to see how that’s an argument for Obama spending more.
“What I’m waiting for is one of these hypocrites to explain how criticizing Bush for not fully funding the war with tax increases and creating more debt is reconciled with defending Obama and his trillion dollar plus deficits for the next 10 years.”
I’m a fiscal moderate by nature, and believe the government should be loath to leap into debts that aren’t value added but, at least some of the Obama initiatives are quite sound.
The first thing is to identify external spending from internal spending. Essentially, what is the current account deficit or balance of payments. Deficits in the face of balanced payments are off less concern. Much of the Bush Era was to expand both Current Account Deficits and Deficit spending. Money spent in the Mid East for both Oil Imports and military spending serves to bleed the nation in three ways. The military becomes weaker, the government debt builds up and the current accounts begin to overhang. Even a balanced set of national books with a current account overhang can collapse if a currency run sets off.
Now the next thing to look at is value added effort. Most people don’t worry about buying a house or getting college loans, because these are assumed to be value added excercises even if they mean debt overhang. The US Government invested heavily in the Interstate Highways, Railroads and public education. These have all paid off in tremendous ways. Certainly, the buckets found in the ARRA for investment into infrastructure, mass transit, energy conservation, and the associated tax credits to these activities are over the long haul value added.
Finally, the thing to look at is the matter transitive spending. If the matter is moving from one pocket to another, then, while it shows up in a tax bill, it can be income neutral at the macro-level. Consider police services, wether I hire private security guards or pay police millage, is a wash to me. I have friends who live in HOA’s paying for guards, and i pay millage to have police service. As long as the police come quickly, i’m happy.
So if Health Insurance occurs as transitive spending, i’m okay with that, wether i pay $800/month to UH or 5% of my salary to Medicare, well,
if i can still see my doctor or get in an ER, i’m happy.
So, while I worry about deficit spending, i do try and assess what’s going on and what’s driving that. The japanese were trying to debt spend to restart the japanese economy, but, it was all “Bridges to Nowhere”, instead of fixing some of their really busted infrastructure in Tokyo. If Obama builds a 150 MPH rail link between Richmond and Boston, I’d be very happy. If he funds the 2nd avenue subway up the edge of Manhattan that would be cool. If he would put in a high speed slidewalk between Grand Central and Penn Station, he would make my life better. It’s quite nice in Chicago to land at OHare, take the subway downtown, visit people and then take the subway to Midway. If i could do that out of Dulles and BWI, or Hartford and Bradley, or LAX and LA, it would improve my business efforts.
If Obama invests into energy conservation, and energy efficiency, it may well pay off in spades. IF the US could become energy independent, we would stop subsidizing Raghead terrorists and Chavez and fix the balance of payments.
So no doubt that explanation will not satisfy Bill Maron, but, that’s my take.
“He probably increased taxes in terms of revenue” that’s an easy enough statistic to check.
“He probably increased taxes in terms of revenue” that’s an easy enough statistic to check.
There is no way in the world to check that, you moron. We can’t do controlled experiments with history.
>“He probably increased taxes in terms of revenue” that’s an easy enough statistic to check.
There is no way in the world to check that, you moron. We can’t do controlled experiments with history.
And yet you assert that claim with such certainty.
And yet you assert that claim with such certainty.
I said “probably,” you moron. How does that translate into “asserting a claim with certainty”?
Why do you insist on making an assclown of yourself with almost every single comment at my web site?
Well instead of using fuzzy language why not give it a numerical value.
Do you believe the Bush Tax cuts had a 80% chance of increasing revenue?
Do you think it was 50%? Perhaps 20%?
Why not state “I am 37% sure that the Bush Tax Cuts increased Revenues”.
Well instead of using fuzzy language why not give it a numerical value.
Do you believe the Bush Tax cuts had a 80% chance of increasing revenue?
I’ve got a better idea, and completely novel one. How about writing something non-idiotic?
Name Calling is not a quantitative answer.
Name Calling is not a quantitative answer.
> Certainly, the buckets found in the ARRA for investment into infrastructure, mass transit, energy conservation, and the associated tax credits to these activities are over the long haul value added.
Yeah right.
Mass transit in the US has been a loss, so why will this round be any different? (You want to ride a train – pay for it or find suckers who will loan construction money to be repaid only from that’s train’s revenues, not the general fund.)
I note that Lee didn’t mention where most of the money is going. Instead he makes vague claims about stuff that is defensible if you ignore past experience. It’s his best play – the rest of the stuff is worse.
If you don’t like being called a moron, then stop demonstrating that you are with almost every single one of your comments.
Tax Relief $288
*State and Local Fiscal Relief $144
Infrastructure and science $111
Protecting the Vulnerable $81
Health Care $59
Education and Training $53
Energy $43
Other $8
So Andy, what part do you have a concern with?