Of course, if you actually read the CBO report (pg 14 on PDF) a key assumption is “even more significantly, the expiration
at the end of 2010 of various provisions originally
enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs
and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
(JGTRRA)” [will boost revenue].
In short, if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire and GDP didn’t go into recession, then we’d have a surplus.
In fact, on page 15, the CBO report says “if the provisions of
EGTRRA and JGTRRA that are scheduled to expire
were instead extended, total revenues would be $3.6 trillion
lower over the next 10 years than CBO now projects.”
There’s your deficit right there.
The CBO was also told to assume no post-2008 spending in Iraq or Afghanistan! The Bush budget people, like the author of this article, were living in fantasyland.
The Bush tax cuts took effect in 2001 and 2003. The federal budget deficit then went from $400 billion in 2003 to $160 billion in 2007. But from 2007 to 2010, the deficit went from $160 billion to $1.6 trillion — a tenfold increase. During that timeframe, federal spending went from $2.7 trillion in 2007 to $3.7 trillion.
How in the world can anyone blame that increase on the Bush tax cuts?
Chris, you absolutely suck at math.
You do realize the current deficit is much greater than 360 Billlion dollars?
The additional Obama spending, per the NRO article, was $300 billion per year. The additional tax revenue, per your math, is $360 billion per year.
Repealing the Bush tax cuts, even on a down economy, would reduce the deficit by $60 billion a year.
Once the economy improves, the deficit falls more rapidly.
Chris must, like Obama, believe the only way to get more revenue is to raise taxes.
In 2008, with the economy in recession, federal spending was just under $3 trillion. The Obama administration and the 2009–2010 Congress chose to enact extraordinary spending increases, starting with the 2009 “stimulus” bill, but then extending to various appropriations bills and new entitlement spending (such as health care spending). As a result, federal spending in 2011 alone was increased to $3.6 trillion — nearly $400 billion more than the Bush administration had contemplated, and more than $600 billion above the 2008 level.
We could argue all day about projections and the effects of taxes on behavior but without a doubt we are spending significantly more now than we were under Bush, which is pretty bad considering the deficits ran up during those years.
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire for just the “rich people” or for everyone will do very little to end deficit spending.
What is interesting is that the stimulus was supposed to be a spike in spending and yet each year we have increased spending. What exactly is all of this new spending going toward?
In a static model yes. But tax increases/decreases have dynamic effects on spending and investment.
There are two components to the budget question. They are spending and revenues. No amount of revenues will be enough if spending isn’t controlled but liberals never want to address that. Spending lets them buy votes. Simply reducing the built-in rate of increase (baseline budgeting) in the budgets will do more to balance the budget than just about anything you do to the tax code.
My Rorschach response: “Then a miracle happens, the deficit falls more rapidly” Because I simply don’t see any other connection with a science or art based in reality.
I don’t take these projections seriously. Basically, both the CBO and OMB traditionally make rosy projections that are fundamentally unrealistic. Here, the main problem is exaggeration of revenue.
Note that Obama’s spending increases over projected spending are relatively small compared to the deficits for the past few years. This is just an indication that the CBO and OMB cannot be relied to provide economic projections.
Of course, if you actually read the CBO report (pg 14 on PDF) a key assumption is “even more significantly, the expiration
at the end of 2010 of various provisions originally
enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs
and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
(JGTRRA)” [will boost revenue].
In short, if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire and GDP didn’t go into recession, then we’d have a surplus.
In fact, on page 15, the CBO report says “if the provisions of
EGTRRA and JGTRRA that are scheduled to expire
were instead extended, total revenues would be $3.6 trillion
lower over the next 10 years than CBO now projects.”
There’s your deficit right there.
The CBO was also told to assume no post-2008 spending in Iraq or Afghanistan! The Bush budget people, like the author of this article, were living in fantasyland.
The Bush tax cuts took effect in 2001 and 2003. The federal budget deficit then went from $400 billion in 2003 to $160 billion in 2007. But from 2007 to 2010, the deficit went from $160 billion to $1.6 trillion — a tenfold increase. During that timeframe, federal spending went from $2.7 trillion in 2007 to $3.7 trillion.
How in the world can anyone blame that increase on the Bush tax cuts?
Chris, you absolutely suck at math.
You do realize the current deficit is much greater than 360 Billlion dollars?
The additional Obama spending, per the NRO article, was $300 billion per year. The additional tax revenue, per your math, is $360 billion per year.
Repealing the Bush tax cuts, even on a down economy, would reduce the deficit by $60 billion a year.
Once the economy improves, the deficit falls more rapidly.
Chris must, like Obama, believe the only way to get more revenue is to raise taxes.
We could argue all day about projections and the effects of taxes on behavior but without a doubt we are spending significantly more now than we were under Bush, which is pretty bad considering the deficits ran up during those years.
Letting the Bush tax cuts expire for just the “rich people” or for everyone will do very little to end deficit spending.
What is interesting is that the stimulus was supposed to be a spike in spending and yet each year we have increased spending. What exactly is all of this new spending going toward?
In a static model yes. But tax increases/decreases have dynamic effects on spending and investment.
There are two components to the budget question. They are spending and revenues. No amount of revenues will be enough if spending isn’t controlled but liberals never want to address that. Spending lets them buy votes. Simply reducing the built-in rate of increase (baseline budgeting) in the budgets will do more to balance the budget than just about anything you do to the tax code.
My Rorschach response: “Then a miracle happens, the deficit falls more rapidly” Because I simply don’t see any other connection with a science or art based in reality.
I don’t take these projections seriously. Basically, both the CBO and OMB traditionally make rosy projections that are fundamentally unrealistic. Here, the main problem is exaggeration of revenue.
Note that Obama’s spending increases over projected spending are relatively small compared to the deficits for the past few years. This is just an indication that the CBO and OMB cannot be relied to provide economic projections.