Tax Cuts, Revisited
Bush took some time to crow today as the expected deficit decline was announced:
President Bush touted new deficit figures Tuesday showing considerable improvement upon earlier administration predictions, saying it shows the wisdom of his tax cuts.
Bush himself announced the figures — a task that for the most part has been left to lower-ranking administration officials in the past. The new figures show the deficit for the budget year ending Sept. 30 will be $296 billion — much better than the $423 billion that Bush predicted in February and a slight improvement over 2005.
Bush said the improvement is due to tax cuts he pushed in 2001 and 2003 and his clampdown on domestic agencies funded by Congress.
Surprisingly, the AP article largely resists laying the turn from surplus to deficit at the feet of Bush:
Bush has had few opportunities to boast about the deficit over the course of his time in office. He inherited in 2001 a surplus estimated by both White House and congressional forecasters at $5.6 trillion over the subsequent decade, and it quickly dwindled.
Those faulty estimates assumed the late-1990s revenue boom — fueled by the stock market and dot.com booms — would continue. But that bubble burst, and a recession and the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks started a flow of red ink. Several rounds of tax cuts, including Bush’s signature $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, also contributed to the return to deficits four years ago after four years of budget surpluses.
Bloggers love to bash the MSM and seldom recognize it when it does well, so kudos to a pretty balanced piece…
The actual results are a 30% reduction in the deficit, over a year.
The papers who are being dismissive of this great news are being completely insincere.
Whether it is the tax cuts, the resiliancy(sp?) of our economy, or the general success of America, the lib and the NYT cannot let this news pass without taking a swipe-diminshing America in the process.
Good news for america is truly bad news for the progressives.(This is now beyond arguing…it simply is reality.)
What the NYT really might address their angst towards, is the CBO. The CBO is continually underestimating growth, which, in the short term, hurts bush. The long term result is a president who keeps outperforming its critics.
That another government agency is working against Bush, but falling on its face in its attempt does not surprise me in the least. I laud their efforts, and look foward to their bias, or inability to accurately predict success, becuase the lower the bar everytime.
They missed it by 30%…suckers.
“He inherited in 2001 a surplus estimated by both White House and congressional forecasters at $5.6 trillion over the subsequent decade, and it quickly dwindled.”
We now know that the CBO (and quite possibly the former WH) have the ability to err.
by 30% in a year…
Their projections about a surplus running into the next decade in light of the fact that they are incapable of predicting short term growth with ANY accuracy, leads me skeptical of their long term forecasts.
Let’s take a look at what the CBO was thinking in August 02.
The timing? Bush is elected in 2000, takes office in 2001, gets a budget that goes into effect in fall of 01-approximately 1 year prior to this cbo report.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3735&sequence=1
At this point the cbo is ‘predicting’ surpluses as follows:
02-5 billion.
03-6 billion.
04-61 billion.
05-111 billion.
06-135 billion.
07-175 billion.
08-213 billion.
09-263 billion.
10-309 billion.
They had previously predicted a 5.6 trillion dollar surplus, per the AP, but am I to be led to believe that a 1.35 trillion dollar tax cut caused the loss of 4 trillion dollars?
These people are like the weatherman…if they can’t see a year ahead, why has their been such widespread acceptance of their projections over a decade?
In their 2002 August summary-(something the Clinton WH nor the AP mentioned)
was this caveat:
“Those projections should be viewed cautiously, however. They are not intended to be a forecast of future outcomes. Indeed, actual budget figures will almost certainly differ from CBO’s baseline projections because of future economic developments, legislative actions, and technical errors in estimating.”
For the progressives who dismiss the belief in the bible-they seemed to have found a new faith, quickly.
This does not jive withthe
But somehow it jives to believe that the tax cuts have, in the last 4 months, cut the budget deficit by $127 billion? Really?
The increase in revenue from taxes has been tracking ahead for some time. Where does the four months come in?
This has been a steady progression for some time,and definitely was not news just 4 months ago.
I am busting on the press in general for their ability to report the future, without even realizing how incapable they are.
The number we have now-the current deficit is the only truth-but also a subjective truth.
My criticism is that there are real numbers-and imaginary numbers. That the press(and to some extent the WH, and all previous wh) chooses to compare the imaginary number to guage performance is like…
Predicting we would have 5000 soldiers dead in Iraq, but then saying only 3000 were killed, and then claiming a moral victory.
The only numbers that matter-actual increase in revenue. forget about any predictions.
The ‘surpluses as far as the eye can see’ was smoke up my colon.
The worst number of the day for me? 9%.
I have had it with the gop. The only time our government works is when the budget process is adversarial. It worked well for clinton AND congress. It is broken now.
Don’t think that I’m going to switch parties, but I cannot endorse the gop congress deserving to remain in the majority. The democrats are politcally irrelevant because they have never sought to find fiscal responsiblity. The republicans have sqaundered their chance.
The only reason I could vote in 06 is if the democrats appear to be incapable of holding a majority responsibly. I now wish for the democrats to win the house, but not the senate, although I think they actually have a better shot at the Seante than the house.
If the dems chose to go hot and heavy on Iraq-they’ll bring me out. If not I wish them well.
IF: The republican congress chose to enact legistlation that does not allow for the growth of governemt to exceed the previous years gdp growth, I’ll vote. They won’t.
9%. They are freaking drunken sailors.
I have been distracted by foreign policy, to a point where I have been blinded by the ineptness of this congress.
I once dared to make the distinction between the two parties on the broad issue of fiscal responsiblity. There is now no distinction. The gop is every bit the greedy pigs that they replaced. I apoligze to any democrat who I have debated arguing fiscal credibility was the gop’s moral high ground. It isn’t. They, and not Bush, are the miserable failures.
Animal Farm style.
Bush has run up over $1 trillion towards our national debt. Hooray! Go Bush!
Clinton put 1.5-2 trillion on our debt as well…
Yeah, and then the only surplus we’ve had in quite some time the year he left office…
Regardless, don’t conservatives think Clinton was a terrible president?
hmmm…foreign policy was a failure.
domestically…in being forced to compromise with congress, his last three years were a tremendous success. Despite the dot-com burst, which sritcs have overempahsized relative to the markets performance over the decade…6 years later, I’ll say it…he did good, with a lot of help, and his success at spinning played no small part.
If he had just paid jones to go away…everything would be different. His hubris, combined with the’eager to please crowd’ let him believe that he was not in the jeapordy that he found himself in during impeachment. The same ignorance about the ramifications of p jones, was exemplifed by his non-existant foreign policy.
If it is possible to seperate foreign policy from clinton, he was what we needed-good bed side manner-after doctor reagan changed our economic policies that Clinton benefitted from.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/are_republicans_kidding_us.html
Cal Thomas butchers the gop over the budget…correctly so. I’m getting nauseous everytime I see a republican talking about the economy. Absolute sell-out.
Well, so, do you (mtl [or others]) seriously think there is a large portion of the country who would vote for someone serious about national security and adopt domestic policies similar to Clinton? I’m thinking his wife is the closest thing out there in ’08…maybe Rudy? I guess it depends on how they sell themselves in the next few years…
I am not enamored with either field, with the exception of a strong affinity for Evan Bayh.
Indiana would be a nice red state pick-up, and Bayh would have a lot of sway over Ohio. Obama would be a nice veep on his ticket, and the dems could turn the entire midwest.
The libs will never go for it.
I would say that my concerns are towards spending-and this will only heighten as the gop continues to fail thru 08. McCain is looking better running as a fiscal hawk, but with McCain I still get the feeling he is just words, and has no substance.
clinton’s domestic policies? The health care thing led to one of the largest defeats in congress ever. Wouldn’t call that one a success. Welfare reform? Only with a gop congress. Same as budget cuts-only with a gop congress. Clinton’s domestic policy was the product of an adversarial process, which worked very well. Seperating what Clinton wanted to do, from what he could do…his domestic success, was in no small part to a conservative congress.
I don’t see an actual ‘conservative congress’ for the next 10 years.