WP: Federal Deficit Likely to Narrow By $100 Billion

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64130-2004May3.html

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 4, 2004; Page E01


Smaller-than-expected tax refunds and rising individual tax receipts will pare back federal borrowing significantly for the first half of this year and could reduce the $521 billion deficit projected for the fiscal year by as much as $100 billion, Treasury and congressional budget officials said yesterday.



The Treasury Department's borrowing estimates may prove to be more good news for President Bush on the economic front, as opponents attempt to make his fiscal stewardship a campaign issue. The $184 billion the government is now expected to borrow through June is a 27 percent improvement from Treasury's February projection of $252 billion, the department said.

G. William Hoagland, a senior economic aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), said he dashed off a memo to GOP leadership predicting the 2004 deficit could be trimmed to $420 billion, a record in dollar terms but considerably lower than the White House's $521 billion projection.

"This is better than what everybody expected," Hoagland said.

Democratic and Republican budget aides in the House warned yesterday that it was too early to reach conclusions. Spending could still take an unexpected jump because of surging hostilities in Iraq. The improving federal borrowing picture, they said, may just be bringing the administration's $521 billion deficit forecast more into line with the $477 billion deficit predicted by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Capitol Hill's official budget scorekeeper.


<snip>

They lie about everything with impunity and get away with it. I'm not shocked but I am amazed at those who still buy it.

Like I trust their info.

But I've been trying to figure out all day what the catch is.

On the unemployment numbers it's easy to catch the lie, look at the number of people exhausting their benefits.

But this one is a real puzzle.

If unemployment is up, or at least steady, wages have fallen, corps are paying less taxes than ever, that means that the middle class are paying more in taxes this year that ever to make up the difference, doesn't it?

It has to come from somewhere, it ain't the wealthy, and it ain't the unemployed and under-employed.

Fuck 'em. This is no different than the bogus employment numbers. Fuck 'em.

we can't just dismiss all good economic news as bogus and expect the voters to follow us.

Even if this report holds out to be true, it will still be the largest budget deficit in history.

Why the hell would this be different?

And it doesn't matter what we say here. The media whores have already shown their stripes: they give the initial bullshit estimates a big-ass headline on the front page, then put the inevitable retraction on page 12.

Just look at how they framed this story. You're right, the deficit will be of Historically Enormous Proportions even if the "best case" scenario comes true. But what gets the headline? "The budget defecit is $100 Billion smaller than we thought it would be." The average reader is going to see that headline on the business or national pages while flipping through to the sports section and miss the part that tells him how big the defecit is. Then he thinks Dubya's such a mensch for shrinking the defecit.

Fuck the media whores, and fuck george bush. If we want to get anything done, we have to go around them all.

Why is that? I thought that certain manipulations were done to give people "more of their money?" So how could there be smaller refunds?

"The Treasury Department's borrowing estimates may prove to be more good news for President Bush on the economic front, as opponents attempt to make his fiscal stewardship a campaign issue."

Even if this "windfall" of $100 billion turns out to be true (it won't), there will be no mention of the TEN TRILLION DOLLARS missing from the US Treasury that Bushco's payback tax cuts will have caused over the next ten years.

shortfall. They make their numbers up as they go.

Go back and read the line in the last paragraph, "could still take an unexpected jump because of surging hostilities...

The federal deficit does NOT include funding the war in Iraq. The figures you are looking at; the deficit of $521 billion is the Federal Budget Deficit which never included war funding which is approved separately by Congress.

If you smell something rotten, you are right. These guys are professional charlatans and they're playing the shell game.

So now we're just a little bankrupt, rather than completely bankrupt.

its just never included in the budgets because * always asks for a seperate supplemental.

But the treasury still has to borrow money and pay for that funding, and that is reflected in the defict figure.

No appropriation for war in the budget. How dumb is that? Well...pretty fucking smart, really. Next time some recalcitrant fiscally conservative Republican House member doesn't agree to cast a crucial vote for an additional War All The Time appropriations bill loaded with pork for red states, he'll be branded as anti-American and have a shitload of money go against him in his next primary election.

...be included in a deficit estimate when no one has estimated or said what it is? This is a great snow job.

With increased war spending the estimate will be higher not lower than projected.

this is a little sugar to help the medicine go down.