News Psssttt, the deficit's shrinking

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 5645
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the recent decline in the U.S. budget deficit, which has reportedly decreased by $11 billion compared to the previous year, with projections suggesting a drop from $413 billion in fiscal year 2004 to $355 billion in 2005. This improvement is attributed to increased tax revenues driven by economic growth and tax cuts, with significant rises in business and personal tax collections. However, concerns remain regarding ongoing federal overspending and the rising national debt, which continues to grow at an alarming rate. The upcoming fiscal year 2006 budget is expected to maintain spending levels while potentially cutting various programs, leading to political pushback from both parties. Despite the positive trend in deficit reduction, skepticism persists about the sustainability of this progress, especially in light of new spending requests and the overall size of the national debt. The conversation reflects a mixture of cautious optimism about the deficit's decline and frustration over persistent overspending and the implications for future fiscal health.
member 5645
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200501131420.asp

Here’s one story you won’t find on tomorrow’s front pages: “The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Shrinking Rapidly.” The headline would be accurate, but the mainstream media is much more interested in talking down this booming economy than telling it like it is.


This week’s Treasury report on the nation’s finances for December shows a year-to-date fiscal 2005 deficit that is already $11 billion less than last year’s. In the first three months of the fiscal year that began last October, cash outlays by the federal government increased by 6.1 percent while tax collections grew by 10.5 percent. When more money comes in than goes out, the deficit shrinks.

At this pace, the 2005 deficit is on track to drop to $355 billion from $413 billion in fiscal year 2004. As a fraction of projected gross domestic product, the new-year deficit will descend to 2.9 percent compared with last year’s deficit share of 3.6 percent.


Wire reports are loaded these days with accounts of an expanded trade gap (driven mostly by slower exports to stagnant European and Japanese economies, along with higher oil imports from the peak in energy prices). But there’s not a single report I can find that mentions the sizable narrowing in U.S. fiscal accounts. Behind this really big budget story is the even-bigger story: The explosion in tax revenues has been prompted by the tax-cut-led economic growth of the past eighteen months.

With 50 percent cash-bonus expensing for the purchase of plant and equipment, productivity-driven corporate profits ranging around 20 percent have generated a 45 percent rise in business taxes. At lower income-tax rates, employment gains of roughly 2.5 million are throwing off more than 6 percent in payroll-tax receipts. Personal tax revenues are rising at a near 9 percent pace.

Meanwhile, in the wake of strong stock market advances over the last two years, non-withheld revenues from individuals — including investor dividends and capital gains that are now taxed at only 15 percent — have jumped by over 14 percent.


Following the Clinton cap-gains tax cut and savings expansion bill of 1997, investment-related tax collections led to bull-market budget surpluses in the pre-9/11 period of 1997-2001. However, despite the flood of new revenues, this year’s federal budget is still overspending. Domestic spending on non-entitlement programs (excluding homeland defense) is rising at a 4.1 percent rate. That’s more than twice the pace of core inflation. But this may be changing.

According to the Washington Post, the Bush budget totals planned for fiscal year 2006 may be essentially unchanged from the totals for fiscal year 2005 (excluding defense and homeland security). According to reporter Jonathan Weisman, the administration’s first really tough budget request (due out next month) “would freeze most spending on agriculture, veterans and science, slash or eliminate dozens of federal programs, and force more costs, from Medicaid to housing, onto state and local governments.”

The rapid growth of federal health care and other entitlements would also be slowed markedly. Though the numbers are not yet available, this sounds a bit like Ronald Reagan’s tax-cutting budget of 1981. In addition to reducing the top personal tax rate to 50 percent from 70 percent, the Gipper proposed budget cuts that would be worth nearly $100 billion in today’s dollars.

Of course, the political screaming over the forthcoming budget has already begun. A passel of Democrats and at least one Republican, Sen. Craig Thomas of Wyoming, have written a protest letter to Josh Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget. Former-Gov. John Engler of Michigan, a Republican and the current president of the National Association of Manufacturers, has pledged to fight the elimination of various protectionist subsidies to his member firms.

However, Sen. Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who is the current chair of the upper chamber’s budget committee and a long-time Bush ally, is set to support the administration’s new budget discipline. This includes, by the way, Bush’s plan to reduce Social Security benefits by replacing wage indexing with a price-level formula and extending the retirement age — one or the other, or both — in return for personal saving accounts.

By the way, Treasury Secretary John Snow just completed a Wall Street tour where leading bond traders told him not to sweat the transitional costs for personal accounts. The traders said that an additional $100 billion a year over the next decade for transitional financing will be easily manageable. “A rounding error,” one senior trader told Snow.


A supply-side tax-reform movement, a shrinking budget deficit, newfound spending discipline, and a determination to confound conventional wisdom by reforming Social Security has George W. Bush’s second term off to a roaring start — even before he is officially sworn in.


I know this won't be popular here. I know my source will be attacked, but the numbers are there for you to view...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
US DEBT: $7,618,664,432,856.82
and climbing

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.12 billion per day since September 30, 2004!

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The following graph shows how the National Debt has grown year by year since 1940 in actual dollar amounts, uncorrected for inflation:
history.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lets just hope it continues to shrink.
 
mattmns said:
Lets just hope it continues to shrink.


Absolutely. A debt pay down is needed eventually, but this must all be done at a moderate pace. I am glad to see things going in the right direction, although, I'm high dissapointed in some of the pork barrel occurring at this date and time.
 
Burnsys said:
US DEBT: $7,618,664,432,856.82
and climbing

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.12 billion per day since September 30, 2004!

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

The following graph shows how the National Debt has grown year by year since 1940 in actual dollar amounts, uncorrected for inflation:
history.gif

Is this supposed to refute my post or something? Please add some opinion so I know your point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a hard time getting too excited over one month change in net deficit, after years of growing deficits. The republicans who cost us $500+ billion dollars due to a repulsive medicare package are still in office, and hearing they are going to refuse inflationary increases in veterans benefits and science programs somehow doesn't make me feel any better. I'd rather have my $'s going to scientifc research than pharmaceutical companies any day.

It's just pathetic that all we have to be proud of is that, if one month's changes continue, we'll be under $400 billion dollars deficit in a year.

Of course, the OP's statements about how you won't see this in the news are a good point too. If it were Kerry they were swearing in the other day, the media would be flaunting this news as proof of his wisdom and righteousness.
 
phatmonky said:
Is this supposed to refute my post or something? Please add some opinion so I know your point.

The deficit is the size of this month's bill. It may be smaller than last month's, but it's still big. And it still gets added to the overall debt, which therefore still grows. Capisce?
 
Phatmonky, praythee; at this rate, when will we have a surplus again? Will it be by the end of Bush's Presidency?
 
  • #10
selfAdjoint said:
The deficit is the size of this month's bill. It may be smaller than last month's, but it's still big. And it still gets added to the overall debt, which therefore still grows. Capisce?

Yes, that's what I made also of this first post. US deficit is none of my business, but it reminds me of a famous statement of a Belgian prime minister in the beginning of the 1980ies: "the increase of the increase of the deficit is lowering" :smile: (for connaisseurs: it was PM Wilfried Martens).

This really struck me: politicians were discovering the conceptual meaning of "second derivative" :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #11
vanesch said:
This really struck me: politicians were discovering the conceptual meaning of "second derivative"

Yeah, economists call it the margin of the margin. Anything for a mystique.
 
  • #12
[sarcasm]Wow, $11 billion, that's ever-so-rapidly decreasing.[/sarcasm]

Also remember that this is after bush's huge deficit increases. A decrease is the least that we could hope for.
 
  • #13
Well, I'm glad something's turning around at last ! It's been high time, wot ?

(I can only imagine the sheer joy Mr. Kudlow must have been experiencing during this announcement ! :rolleyes: - not an attack, okay ?)
 
  • #14
Wait until usa/israel attacks Iran or Syria,deficit then will soar to the new heights.
 
  • #15
wasteofo2 said:
Phatmonky, praythee; at this rate, when will we have a surplus again? Will it be by the end of Bush's Presidency?

According to the numbers up top, the deficit is currently at $355 billion, shrinking at a rate of $44 billion per year. If it continued shrinking at exactly that rate, it would take 8 1/2 years to see a surplus. However, if federal spending continues to decrease as the economy improves and tax revenues increase, it would happen much sooner. It wouldn't be impossible to see a surplus by the end of Bush's term. I wouldn't exactly expect it, though, based on a very short-term trend alone.
 
  • #16
loseyourname said:
According to the numbers up top, the deficit is currently at $355 billion, shrinking at a rate of $44 billion per year. If it continued shrinking at exactly that rate, it would take 8 1/2 years to see a surplus. However, if federal spending continues to decrease as the economy improves and tax revenues increase, it would happen much sooner. It wouldn't be impossible to see a surplus by the end of Bush's term. I wouldn't exactly expect it, though, based on a very short-term trend alone.
What would you expect the budget defecit to be by the end of Bush's term? Would you care to at least wager if it'll be more or less than it was when he started his second term?
 
  • #17
I'm going to start a poll on this.
 
  • #18
selfAdjoint said:
The deficit is the size of this month's bill. It may be smaller than last month's, but it's still big. And it still gets added to the overall debt, which therefore still grows. Capisce?


I'm aware of that, and that has nothing to do with refuting my post, which is why I asked for clarification, that I'm still not getting.
 
  • #19
phatmonky said:
I'm aware of that, and that has nothing to do with refuting my post, which is why I asked for clarification, that I'm still not getting.
Your point is correct, the defecit is shrinking. The points others have been making, however, is that it isn't that big of a deal, since we're still running a HUGE budget defecit and have massive debt regardless.
 
  • #20
Hey, Yo! The budget deficit is NOT shrinking afterall!

Heard a report this morning that the White House is asking for $80 billion for this year on top of what they have already requested. So there goes the $11 billion decrease. The official numbers will not be available until the president releases the formal budget request, which is supposed to happen on February 7.

AND, the current deficit projections do not include a request to repeal the estate tax - which would greatly increase the loss of revenue to the Treasury.

For information - see Congressional Budget Office
 
Last edited:
Back
Top