U.S. to Run Smaller Than Expected Deficit in 2003

[hedda_foil]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/congress_deficit_dc

U.S. to Run Smaller Than Expected Deficit in 2003
1 hour, 18 minutes ago Add Politics to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government will run a smaller-than-expected, but still record-setting, deficit of around $380 billion in 2003, officials said on Thursday.



That would be well above the prior record of $290 billion set in 1992, but also well below previous White House forecasts that the government could see a budget shortfall of up to $455 billion in the latest fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30.


Final data on the deficit will only be ready later this month. But the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) was set on Thursday to lower its own official estimate by some $20 billion to just under $380 billion, sources familiar with the report said.


And private sector projections for a deficit of around that level were "very similar to the data we're seeing," said White House Budget Office spokesman Trent Duffy.


A dip in the projected 2003 deficit would be a rare bit of budget good news for President Bush (news - web sites), who has presided over one of the largest fiscal reversals in U.S. history. In 2000, the year before Bush took office, the government booked a record 2000 surplus of $236 billion. <snip>

CAN ANYBODY SAY "COOKED BOOKS"? I knew you could.

On edit: accidentally pasted too many paragraphs.

[Anus Retainus]

1. Give the Books to Ahhnold!

He'll reduce the debt even more!

[lebkuchen]

2. A "smaller" US deficit is like being a little bit pregnant

[Bucky]

16. Ha! It's only septuplets, not octuplets... I'm so relieved!

Apparently the president is pro-choice on spending YOUR money like a drunk sailor on a 3-day pass in Singapore

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. Read the NY Times op/ed page

I'm pretty sure included in that figure is the projected social security surplus for this year.

Take that out (as you should) and the money hole is a lot larger.

[Gin]

4. let's see him talk this "good news" up...they are grasping at straws

gin

[candy331]

9. Well the

spin is on big time. We will watch the real spinners now and next week his polls numbers will have spun back up too.

[asjr]

10. ss

And the SS money is long gone but they will use the figure anyway.

[UpInArms]

14. you mean this part

What's missing from the $400 billion figure is an accurate recognition of the mounting obligations of the Social Security system. Under current practices, Social Security reports its financial performance on a cash-flow basis: it compares annual revenues to annual costs and reports a surplus or a deficit. Last year, Social Security enjoyed a surplus of roughly $160 billion. The government used this money to mask what would otherwise have been a $560 billion federal deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/09/opinion/09JACK.html

[tsakshaug]

5. This is great

Can we take this "extra" 100 billion and put it into Iraq?
Wow! found money!

[Noordam]

6. Cooked Books and NO MONEY FOR IRAQ

that figure does not include the 87 Billion for Iraq.

[benfranklin1776]

12. Yep Enron style accounting.

Trumpet alleged "savings" loudly while carrying the actual debt over into the next fiscal year and hope no one notices.


From the article:
"I wouldn't want to read a lot into this,"
said Bill Hoagland, senior budget adviser to Senate Republican Leader
Bill Frist of Tennessee.

Hoagland noted that, to the extent the drop in the 2003 deficit reflected
slower-than-expected rates of spending on ongoing U.S. operations in
Iraq (news - web sites), those costs would simply be shifted over into the
current fiscal year.

[bif]

7. Break out the champagne!

It's all done with smoke and mirrors.

[Stupdworld]

8. Good News President Bush!

"The deficit reduction will save my ass next year?"

No, but I saved 150 bucks on my insurance by switching to Geico!

[Bandit]

11. And all of it is without Iraq costs figured in or Afghanistan either.

If they were honest it would be over six hundred billion.

[gratuitous]

13. Well sure!

Cut military salaries and make those slackers in the medical wards buy their own meals, and wa-laa! A lower deficit!

[tom_paine]

15. Lies and the Lying Liars who tell Them

As we have seen, gradually, from Treasury on down (how they figure tax burdens, etc.) have come under the control of the Busheviks who use every filthy trick to cook the books ever conceived in a way that shatters the "old standards" for shading stats in your favor to outright dishonest horseshit.

Why would this be any different.

With the Busheviks, as with Hitler, Stalin, marcos, and the rest of the Totalitarians before them, one can just factor in the lying.

If they say it went down to $380,000,000,000, then it was ALWAYS at $720,000,000,000.

My God, to live in a Free Country again, not this Techincally-Free-Buit-On-It's-Way-Down-to-the-Ferdinand-Marcos-style Empire we live in now.

And no, I'm not leaving. I love this country (The Old American Republic, that is, not this Empire) and will fight to see it restored, if that is even possible.

[GOPBasher]

17. Well in that case, Bush and the Repukes are REALLY GOOD!

Bush and his cronies in congress must be really good and handing the budget, because the NEW estimated deficit is much, much BETTER than the old budget deficit. I mean, this record deficit doesn't blow away the old record by nearly as much as we thought it would. Good job, Chimp!!!

<sarcasm off>

[bluedog]

18. the way they did this

I heard on c-span meetings it has something to do with the education bill.they keep moving it forwards and then back too a different year....obey was saying this..have to look for the info on I think last weeks house scripts....