OMB/CBO FY04 DEFICIT ESTIMATES = 574 - 600 BILLION... not 422 Billion

[ulTRAX]

There's a great deal of confusion about the FY04 deficits numbers. There's a number of different estimates from CBO and OMB and they are all being revised during the fiscal year. Remember that the 422 Billion estimate you may have heard in the news today is dishonest. It includes as revenue some 153 BILLION that is being borrowed from Social Security.

Here's the latest projections:

If you download a copy of the CBO's "SEPTEMBER 2004 The Budget
and Economic Outlook: An Update

Scroll down to Table 1.2 CBO’s Baseline Budget Projections

Unified Deficit = 422 BILLION (number reported in news)
Off-budget surplus = +153 BILLION
On-budget deficit = -574 BILLION

Using the 422 Billion figure is dishonest. It includes 153 Billion borrowed from the off-budget surplus yet treats it as regular revenue. The TRUE figure is the on-budget deficit.... whatever that turns out to be.

OMB also has a newer estimate dated 7-30-04: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/05msr.pdf
This provides the Whitehouse's 455 Billion deficit figure. You'll have to scroll down to Table 14. BUDGET SUMMARY BY CATEGORY where you'll see the real off-budget deficit is 600 BILLION.... with 155 Billion in off-budget surpluses being borrowed give that dishonest 455 Billion deficit figure.

Previously I had been using the 675 BILLION Deficit figure which I got from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/tables.html Table S–12. Budget Summary by Category then to the On-budget deficit line. Under the FY04 column the on-budget deficit was 675 BILLION with a 154 Billion off-budget surplus.

[wryter2000]

1. Dammit, *a-hole

That's my retirement money you're borrowing. Tell me I'm not supposed to hate this creep.

[cthrumatrix]

14. borrow....translation = never see again when it comes to shrub

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. I just saw this story appear

Bush is swimming upstream for sure. Kerry will begin hammering him on this immediately.

[ulTRAX]

4. So Far Kerry Has Been Clueless

He's left the deficit/debt numbers abstract. In his Plan For America eBook available at his site they use the unified deficit figures.... then about 477 Billion. That might have been an estimate from last spring.

I suspect that the Democrats are cautious about educating the public about this off/on budget scam since historically both parties are complicit in the deception. Maybe if they HAD educated the public more they would have seen though Bush's 2000 call for irresponsible tax cuts while We The People were 5.6 TRILLION in debt.

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. Jesus is coming...

...before the T-bills all mature.

No problem.

[ulTRAX]

5. and we also don't have to worry about......

If Jesus is coming soon we also don't have to worry about taking care of our national parks. Isn't that what James Watts once said?

[indepat]

6. The $153 billion is being sprinkled on the most affluent right now

rather than being held to pay promised social security benefits later: This action best epitomizes the heart, mind, and soul of Repukedom. Of course, didn't W tell partisan audiences that 9-11 gave gave him his trifecta, so all bets, including promises not to raid the lock box, were off. Oh lucky, lucky W.

[ulTRAX]

9. how did that "lock box" work anyway?

Since by law the government can't let piles of cash just sit under a mattress... I assume the so called "lock box" was just a pledge to not use the SS security surplus for expenditures. Instead it would be used to pay down the debt held by the public. But that still means the intergovernmental debt would still rise and once the SS surplus came to an end in around 15 years, those IOUs would have to be called in.

Ultimately these IOUs have to be paid down from ON-budget revenues... and Bush's determination to sabotage revenues is going to make this impossible without future tax payers having to either cut spending, raise taxes, print money, default... or some combination.

Kerry needs to make the debt less abstract and more concrete... and he needs to show the voters the enormity of the task and by doing so just how irresponsible and dangerous Bush is. The SS IOUs are currently some 3 TRILLION dollars. Who knows what that debt will be in 2020! How can that EVER be repaid when Bush is running 575-600 Billion deficits?

[indepat]

16. It can't, Repukes know it, so they intentionally starve the beast,

knowing full well the day of reneging on the promised benefits will be sooner rather than later. In the meantime, their patrons will have a few extra trillion dollars sloshing around in their personal coffers as the Federal government goes into bankruptcy, either through an unwillingness or an inability to service its debt as agreed.

[tandot]

7. Tax cuts for the rich financed with poor people's Social Security funds

don't be a girlie man: screw the poor and take all their money

[oscar111]

8. just stole the poor's pension money

and any making up of the n. debt later on, will be by taxes mostly on the lower classes?

[oscar111]

10. why isnt taking from ss a big headline story?

isnt it still a big deal to borrow from ss?

or is it now ho hum..... yawn.

[ulTRAX]

11. it once was

Back about 14 years ago when the Concord Coalition was more active. I fact I believe Congress passed a law stating that the unified budget figures would not be used. Maybe I dreamt it.

[tandot]

12. What a society we live in

take it from the poor to give it to the rich. And in return, they'll outsource our jobs so they get to keep even more of their money.

Hopefully, once Kerry is in office, the wealthy and rich corporations will pay their fair share to pay down the debt.

[NV1962]

13. Don't worry about $422bn / $574+bn this year...

Worry about the 1.5 TRILLION EXTRA over the next 10 years that the yahoos are pining to stick to your retirement and your children to pay off, instead!

[ulTRAX]

15. GREAT DEBT FACT SHEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just found this: http://www.justfacts.com/ssdebtimpact.htm#_ftn3

It advocates for NOT combining the off-budget surplus with the rest of the federal budget... something Patrick Moynihan tried to do about 12 years ago.

Curiously, Cato argues just the opposite on: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa129.html

Guess who I agree with!

[NV1962]

17. About those two sources...

The first one -- tellingly named "Just Facts" -- says among many other things the following:

Privatization would put Social Security surpluses into the accounts of individual citizens. This money would be their personal property that no one could touch (including the individuals who own it) until they are eligible to receive Social Security benefits. The concept is simple: Get the money out of the reach of politicians. If they don't have it, there is no way they can spend it or take advantage of a confusing situation to make people believe that they are saving it.

Yeah, let's privatize SS! Let's also promote people putting their "liberated" SS money in the stock market, why not, so that the inevitable blame game of the Wall St sharks eventually will identify victim with perpetrator, hey don't look at me I simply shuffled the money around that you wanted to invest!

Then, about the second: CATO is a pretty well-known arch-conservative, far-rightwing think tank. Discredited in my book as a spinning machine designed to give an air of "credence" to RW bile. Um... but I'd like a source with a more, let's say, people-oriented fundament giving their take on "what to do with the SS loot."

Sorry...

:shrug:

[ulTRAX]

18. sorry

I just was looking at the center part of the article and the first source seemed to cut though the fog the politicians put up around budget/SS issues. I wasn't aware of a political agenda. I should have read further before recommending it. <dope slap>ulTRAX</dope slap> The criticism of Gore's SS plan in 2000 is interesting though.

As for Cato... I'm well aware who they are.

But this still leaves open the question of just what the true deficit is. I have the same position as the first source that the off-budget sources of revenues should NOT be included in a unified budget. We see how this gives politicians sleaze room to fudge the budget numbers by 150 billion.

[NV1962]

19. Absolutely

Hey, don't worry about not seeing everything - there's a lot of text in there!

And yes, I certainly prefer a thorough and extensive rationale given by someone with whose analysis (conclusion) I disagree, rather than a vague / ambiguous statement that's open to interpretation.

In essence, that's why I can (and do!) respect the honest conservatives (ya know, the 'Barry Goldwater' types) even while I very much disagree with their take on things. But at least I'm certain that their intentions, approach and 'methodology' is integer.

Which is also why I can't (and won't, ever) respect bushistas who happily digest and reproduce a steady diet consisting mostly of bile, venom, crap and unsubstantiated fluff - with no intent other than to stifle / overrun / strongarm their opponent(s)

Anyway - my point here (in this reply) being that yes, I agree that the thorough analysis of 'Just Facts' (that overly suggestive name actually was the reason I decided to go with a fine toothcomb over their stuff... Suspicious nature, can't help it!) deserves credit for its documented and solid nature.

It's the conclusion that I disagree with... So, in essence I think you & I agree here.

Even (especially) on what CATO is (and where to send 'em, given the choice!)