Bush submits budget, all-time record breaking deficits to follow.

According to an article the other day in the New York Times—Bush Unveils Ambitious New Budget (free registration required), The Shrub(TM) will be submitting to Congress a budget that will go down in history for creating one of the biggest deficits in our nation’s history.

The budget that President Bush sends to Congress on Monday would expand the military, create a major new social entitlement, energize the economy and, most likely, produce big deficits for the foreseeable future.

Not since the early days of Ronald Reagan’s presidency has an administration harbored such bold ambitions and such a lack of concern about red ink. White House officials concede that deficits could top $300 billion this year and next, and the budget will probably not project a return to surpluses in the next five years.

Five years? Hell, Allen Greenspan’s staff have already said we’d be lucky if we see surpluses again within the next decade.

White House officials said this week that they would propose an increase of roughly $16 billion for military spending in the 2004 fiscal year, but they also conceded that they might ask for additional billions in the months ahead even if the country does not fight a war with Iraq.

“It’s possible,” said Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. “Why could it happen even if there is not a war? The history of defense spending has been one of surge and purge, where you waste money on the way up and on the way down. The president is trying to force the hard choice” to maintain steady growth, Mr. Daniels said.

OK, did you get that part? The part about how even if they don’t go to war they might still ask for billions more? The defense contractors must be rubbing their hands together in such glee that they’re risking friction burns right now.

If the country does goes to war, Mr. Bush plans to ask Congress for additional billions to cover those costs as well.

But of course. Wouldn’t want to plan that into the budget now even if it does seem like he’s hell-bent on going to war regardless of whether anyone else, including his own countrymen, approve of it.

The president’s budget will also leave out other big new liabilities linked to his tax plans. The budget will include Mr. Bush’s proposal for tax-advantaged individual retirement programs. But the tax cuts will not show up in his budget, which lays out costs for the next five years, because contributions to the savings plans will not cut a taxpayer’s current taxes. The tax cuts will only occur as people retire and start to withdraw the profits that accumulate, which will be tax free.

Nor will the budget include the huge costs of Mr. Bush’s call to make his tax cuts from 2001 permanent. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that cost at $785 billion over 10 years, but almost none of those costs will show up until nearly the end of the decade.

Mr. Bush’s Democratic opponents in Congress are already starting to attack the budget as “reckless” and “irresponsible,” and House Democrats have calculated that the sum total of Mr. Bush’s tax plans would add $1.7 trillion in debt by 2011.

The thing that cracks me up is the Republicans love to bash Democrats as the “tax and spend” party. Let’s be honest, though, at least with that method the Government actually has the money to SPEND!

Ah how I long for the days of Clinton where our primary concern was whether or not he was porking the interns in the oval office. At least the economy wasn’t in the shitter and he wasn’t working overtime to make sure it was as deeply entrenched in the red as possible. Maybe that’s the problem, we just need to get G.W. laid a couple of times and perhaps he’ll mellow out. Consider the following:

Restoring Fiscal Discipline, Replacing Decades of Budget Deficits with Surpluses

Moving From Record Deficits to Record Surplus

In 1992, the deficit was $290 billion, a record dollar high, and was projected to reach over $400 billion this year. Instead, we had a budget surplus of $124 billion in 1999.
The current surplus is the largest dollar surplus on record (even after adjusting for inflation) and the largest as a share of our economy since 1951.
With the government no longer draining resources out of capital markets, businesses have more funds for productive investment. This has helped to fuel a 12 percent real annual increase in producers’ durable equipment investment since 1993 – the sixth year in a row of double-digit growth. This compares to 3 percent annual growth from 1981-92, a period that saw the debt held by the public quadruple.
[source: National Economic Council; OMB, 12/3/99]

Paying Off the National Debt

In 1999, public debt was reduced by $88 billion, which follows the $51 billion debt reduction in 1998, and brings the two-year total up to $140 billion. Public debt is $1.7 trillion lower in 1999 than was projected in 1993.
As a result of Clinton-Gore debt reduction, interest payments on the debt were $91 billion lower than projected. In 1993, the net interest payments on the debt held by the public were projected to grow to $321 billion in 1999.
Debt reduction brings real benefits for the American people. Reduced debt means lower interest rates and reduced payments on car loans and student loans. A family with a home mortgage of $100,000 might expect to save roughly $2,000 per year in reduced mortgage payments. Lower interest rates have saved families with typical car loans or student loans $200.
With the President’s plan, we are now on track to eliminate the nation’s publicly held debt by 2015. The last time the United States did not have a national debt was during the administration of Andrew Jackson (1835).
[source: OMB, 10/27/99; Treasury Dept, Office of Economic Policy, From Widening Deficits to Paying Down the Debt: Benefits for the American People, 8/4/99]

Fiscal Discipline for America’s Future

From 1980 to 1992, spending as a share of GDP increased, rising from 21.7% to 22.5%. Since President Clinton took office, spending as a share of the economy has fallen from 22.5% in 1992 to 19.3% in 1999—the lowest level since 1974.
Real discretionary spending has declined by more than one-half percent per year under President Clinton; from 1980 to 1992, real discretionary spending increased 1.0 percent per year.
At the same time, President Clinton has increased investments in education, technology and other areas that are vital to growth.
[source: Office of Management & Budget, 10/27/99; Budget of the U.S. Government FY 2000, Historical Tables,Ӕ (table 8.4)]

Kinda makes you nostalgic for the previous administration, don’t it? Thanks to Jason for digging this bit of economic history up.

8 thoughts on “Bush submits budget, all-time record breaking deficits to follow.

  1. Hey Jason, history did not start in 1992, nor did fiscal responsibility. Did you ever hear of Jimmy Carter’s “Misery Index?” (Maybe you are too young.  Wait until you have to start earning a living.)

    Bill Clinton budgets of the first three or four years projected deficits for “as far as the eye could see.” Then Clinton had his political hide saved by something that has not occurred in 100 years or more—a Congress that had the ability to sway public opinion long enough to make excess spending politically incorrect. 

    That Congress had a House of Representatives that was led by Speaker Newt Gingrich and the thing that swayed public opinion was called the Contract With America.  It carried Bill, kicking and screaming, away from repugnant spending habits of a century.

    Part of George Bush’s budget problems exist because George’s Defense Department has current budget needs and, in addition, George is making up for the defense needs, when Bill was President, that went unheeded.  Thus George has to double up.

    Never has the United States of America been led by a President, who was as CORRUPT as “Honest Bill.”

    You see Jason, we do not have a monarchy, or a dictatorship (yet.)  There is more to our government than an “Executive Branch.”  We have 544 others, namely 100 U S Senators, 435 in the House of Representatives, and 9 Justices on the Supreme Court.

    Your hero seems to be trying to bring down the US government.  I cannot understand why unless 1) he resents being term limited out as the U S President, 2) he would like to replace Kofi Annon and 3) by leading a “United” Nations, he would govern the United States once again, but only if the U S government is subserviant to a “United” Nations government.

    (The “U” in UN could also stand for un-united.)

  2. I’m not sure who Jason’s hero is, but it seems that Miles has bought the Republican rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Must be a Ditto-head. Yeah, yeah, evil Bill Clinton stuck his penis in an intern…that must be why the economy is in the state it is in today. Why is it that everytime a Republican gets into office and the economy goes to hell it was the previous Democratic president that caused it, and of course when the Democratic president presides over a good economy that it is all because a Republican was in office before him? Sounds laughably ridiculous.

    Now that we have a government full of super-secret secret-squirrels we cant even get a straight answer about why we should go to war with Iraq. I was all for stomping on Al-Quaida right after 9-11 (actually I was for it before then when stories of their human rights abuses started showing up in the news) but Saddam, as vile an individual as he is, has NOT been linked to Al-Quaida by the current Bush administration. And the Bush administration has no interest in opening up to us, the American people, let alone the world…we are all children who cannot be trusted to govern ourselves. You don’t try to rationalize with children do you?

    Poor George Bush, after stealing an election he finds himself in a horrible economy helped into the toilet by people like his friend at Enron, Kenneth Lay (who the government was consulting secretly in regards to energy programs). Poor George having to build up our military because Slick Willie ignored them (in 1998 (the lowest year) the military was getting 282 billion dollars for defense, compare that to education spending of 125 billion over 25 YEARS!). Lucky George that a small group of terrorists attacked so successfully the American people on American soil…and he gets approval ratings higher than he had any right to expect.

    Let’s ignore the rapid erosion of the Constitution, the secrecy of our government against it’s own people, that current spending will completely reverse the headway we had made in paying down the deficit, and that tax cuts for the wealthy in no way benefit ANYONE other than the wealthy. Be a good American…keep your head down and your mouth shut…spend your tax refund to stimulate the economy…obey your betters.

  3. In 1945, as a child of 13, I had a need to go to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.  On saturday afternoon, my mother let me go to the movie.  It was cowboys and indians, just like what I would have seen, back home.

    Other kids were waiting for the movie theatre to open, they found out I was from Texas and one poor soul asked, “What do you have for a hospital down there, a barn?”  He and the ones who refer to our President as a cowboy, are about as dumb as they come.

    Believe it or not, cowboys are pretty good people.  So it really isn’t as insulting as the uneducated souls might think.

    Today’s events look like more than rhetoric to me (which we had for eight years.) It looks like action which will bring REAL PEACE to the people of Iraq.

    CAN YOU HEAR GEORGE BUSH NOW?

  4. Hey, I am sorry that people are idiots…when I was in boot camp and was asked where I was from and I said Detroit (I lived 1 mile from the city limit when I enlisted so it was simpler than saying Centerline and getting a blank stare), I was immediately asked if I had ever shot anyone. It was asked very deadpan and could have been a joke, but I just chalked it up to the average citizen being mentally retarded. I don’t doubt many if not most cowboys are good people and many if not most of the people in Detroit have never shot anyone.

    However, the slights that you may have experienced while waiting in line for that movie back in 1945 do not make King George’s war any more valid. Slaughtering people, combatants and non-combatants alike, IS much more than rhetoric but the question has never been whether or not we could win a war with Iraq and effect regime change…it was whether or not we should. You are spouting the ‘Peace for a liberated Iraq’ party line now, just like all of your compassionate conservative ilk, but just two weeks ago this was about finding and destroying ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’. I am pretty sure that the SURVIVING people of Iraq will be better off than they were under Saddam, but the Bush administration waged a war of aggression against a sovereign nation and if they can’t prove WOMD, this will be the first truly criminal war America has ever been forced to fight. Maybe in your world might makes right and the ends justify the means, but you and your kind are on a planet covered in human beings that might just disagree.

    Can you hear me?

  5. Well, you’ve gotta admit that at least the dead Iraqi’s have found some peace and freedom at last. All thanks to BushCo, bringing peace and freedom lovingly wrapped around a depleted uranium shell!

  6. if i had a chance to kill the son of a bitch i’d kill him slowly for the people he’s hurt!

  7. Mike, what I find interesting is that you said that “action will bring real peace” to the people of Iraq.  Now, the “war” is said and done, Bush himself declared it over on May 1st.  Yet -64- American soldiers have died since then.  Iraq, two months later, is in far, -far- worse shape than it was a year ago.  Real peace?  Tell that to all the Iraqi citizens who have died.  As of May 1st, it was over 3,000.  Tell that to the people in Baghdad, who live in absolute squalor because the US precision-bombed their sewage treatment facilities, water facilities, power plants, everything that was needed to sustain life in Iraq was blown apart.  Peace?  Well, if we kill everyone, I suppose there won’t be anyone left to fight.  Only ol’ George will be there, sitting on his rocking chair with a shotgun across his lap.

    Oh, as for the Weapons of Mass Destruction?  Where are they, Mike?  Bush insisted that the U.N. inspections cease, though they “needed more time.”  And now what is the U.S. military saying?  “We need more time.”  Funny how that works.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.