We won't know for sure what this year's federal budget deficit is going to be until the end of the fiscal year, but if the projections are accurate, a whole lot of talking points are going to need revisions.
The federal budget deficit in 2013 is projected to be $845 billion, the first time the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has forecast a deficit below $1 trillion under President Obama.
The reduction in the budget deficit comes after Congress approved higher tax rates on households with annual income above $450,000.
The CBO also projects the deficit will shrink again next year to $430 billion.
Why is this politically significant? For one thing, congressional Republicans said raising taxes on the wealthy would not improve the nation's finances, and it appears we now have even more evidence to the contrary. They also seem to enjoy complaining about "trillion-dollar deficits every year," and will have to drop the line from their repertoire.
What's more, it appears the deficit will have been cut nearly in half -- both in real terms and as a percentage of GDP -- since President Obama inherited a massive budget shortfall from the Bush/Cheney administration.
Of course, there's also the matter of the fiscal debate -- as GOP lawmakers continue to insist Washington take the deficit seriously, and adopt austerity measures intended to close the budget shortfall in a hurry, we're reminded today that the deficit is already shrinking.
For the record, I still think it's a mistake to assume that shrinking deficits are good news. There's a competing school of thought -- which I'm sympathetic to -- that suggests the deficit is currently too small, and that given economic conditions, interest rates, and the current yield of Treasuries, we should be borrowing far more and investing that money in job creation.
But at least as far as the establishment conversation goes, we should at least have a fiscal debate based on facts -- and the facts are that the deficit is shrinking in a hurry.
Leave a Comment:
Gee, it's almost as if the increase in the deficit was due to the recession decreasing tax revenues at the same time spending on safety net programs increased and that that problem corrects itself as the recession recedes. Why, it might even make one believe that all of the hysteria about "out of control spending" was just disingenuous propaganda perpetrated by people whose real agenda was ideological rather than fiscal.
When asked about this theory Speaker Boehner responded "Doh!"
Actually the facts aren't facts, they're guesses. And how about we have some better context.... http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/obama-deficit-e1334149698931.jpg
Shooter
Ahemm:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849
just ...you know...Facts
Gotta love how Shooter's linked graph gives Bush's last year to Obama. Groan. It's like trying to have a discussion with someone on pot.
Hey Shooter,
I just created a pretty little graphic that shows Obama as the bestest at everything since the dawn of man. Once I post it on the inter-webs, it will be as true as your pretty little graphic - and as bout as accurate.
Come on Shooter,
Where is your response to dragoon.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849
Shooter
Your own graph show a continues decrease in deficit.
He's "factophobic"...show him one and he disappears faster than a magicians rabbit.
I looked at the chart and note it is an "analysis" of estimates. Not even real CBO numbers. But the part I like best is the wide swath "Bush tax cuts" slashes through the deficits. Shouldn't that be Obama tax cuts? They're his now and he declined to go back to Clinton rates. He owns them.
So the reality here is CBPP blames Obama for most of the deficit estimate. Amusing. Sadly, I don't believe the analysis of the estimates, but I sincerely hope they are correct and we're down to under $500 billion in a couple years. That would be lovely.
Any questions?
He tried to go back to the Clinton rates several times but The GOP in the House wouldn't let him so he took the best deal he could get that they would sign off on, and if you want to say that because of that he "owns" them now that's fine but congress owns them too and they are also the ones who ran up the bills in the first place. To try and place blame for the way things are now is like trying to complain that the fireman trying to save your house are making your water bill go up.
So in the final analysis the point still stands that the current state of the economy is in large part of fact The fault of the previous administrations and the congress that authorized the spending.
Now if you would care to go on with this we can discuss why things haven't improved much faster than they have and who is to blame for that...but I doubt you will like those facts much either.
Sadly, you don't believe it?
Snork…..!!!!!!!
The key words are in the headline of the twice posted URL, which is what economists (not Obama) say is the problem:
Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Drive Large Current Deficits
But, alas, the folks are still truing to kill economic recovery to win an election that already happened.
The whole crux of the huge cutting proponents"
It will hurt the economy. That is all there is to it.
Unless you just WANT to cut SS, Medicare, Food Stamps and cause poor, elderly, children, students… those people to suffer.
Believing something is now Obama's that happened before he was President does not make it so.
It's no use, when someone chooses to disbelieve…. willfully changing history because the RW says it… The policies of Bush led to this, so renaming them and erasing the timeline doesn't change a thing.
It's like taking the label off of a major name and putting it on a knock off.
Is that counterfeiting, or not?
The economy tanked, the revenues lost not only because of tax rates, but jobs were LOST, see? Can people see that jobs have left and caused deficit AND economy to stall. It sure looked like NOTHING was happening along those lines in Congress. The President was the enemy AND the American worker.
Is there ANY way to cooperate on getting jobs back with good wages and stop trying to demonize Obama for what Bush did? Or worse, recreate what Bush did?
Stop trying to say Bush didn't do this, Obama didn't do enough. Please?
Clinton was right, "it's the economy, stupid". Economics is how we get out of this, not just cutting everything in sight. That is so counter productive!
Economics means people need money to buy stuff and revenue goes in to pay deficit? How about abandoning the counter productive fallacy of blowing up the government?
Oh brother. You're really going to argue that Obama for all the Clinton rates and the nasty old Republicans thwarted him? This says different...
No, Obama wanted those tax cuts something fierce. And now he gets credit for the deficits instead of Bush.
ok if you want to split hairs what he wanted was to have them expire and then enact them for the middle class and the poor...a blatantly political move but considering that they were implemented for much the same reason in the first place I don't see that as being much of an issue...
face it Shooter Obama is covered in economic Teflon and you aren't going to make any of this crap stick
Gee, it's almost as if the increase in the deficit was due to the recession decreasing tax revenues at the same time spending on safety net programs increased and that that problem corrects itself as the recession recedes. Why, it might even make one believe that all of the hysteria about "out of control spending" was just disingenuous propaganda perpetrated by people whose real agenda was ideological rather than fiscal.
^ and the best part is that more and more people are coming to figure this out.
Shootie:
Doesn't read past the first sentence.
Here is the very next sentence:
Dragoon's link http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3849
to which Shootie is responding (to the first sentence)
Well now… am I so glad I took the time to open his ignored comment after reading responses.
Not even a little bit "amusing".
Eye roll…
Comprehension also lacking?
The CBO is the same organization that proclaimed ObamaCare Budget neutral at voting time, then a couple years later recalculated to a 1.2 Trillion dollar cost. The CBO has lost it's credibility.
According to the Yahoo article on this prediction, an inconvenient truth to this year's deficit prediction, that TRMS left out, is they assume the Sequestration (budget cuts across the board) to take affect, which the POTUS is working very hard not to happen.
The fact TRMS purposely did not include this fact when proclaiming deficit reductions were due to tax increases only is incredibly irresponsible and a major spinnnnnnnnnnnnnn. In fact the first year of tax increases was offset by the Hurricane Sandy bill.
The CBO included assumptions the POTUS, Democrats, and Republicans find unfavorable to make the deficit look less than reality just before a budget battle and we're supposed to believe they are nonpartisan? I think not!
FDH, if you drastically cut the economy will tank more, exacerbating the problem further. An economic recession (if it happens-) would erase quite a bit of this. Don't people understand that?
The point most people concede is the Great Recession was put on steroids because of the economic downturn?
My conclusion logically then is those that refuse to admit this still want drastic cuts WANT economic downturn AND kill FDR programs. They also will never apologize for voting for Bush, who was given a surplus. They just squawk about it's now all Obama's to clean up and what is taking so long, slash, cut, burn and leave economy sitting there, then moan about jobless people needing assistance and a higher crime rate.
I don't blame Bush for 9-11, but I do for his policies that brought about job loss, housing/bank crisis, tax cuts and spending on 2 wars, one of which I opposed openly before it occurred.
The housing market has hit bottom and coming back. Slow, but cutting jobs would reverse that. Housing is a biggie in the economy.
I am not one to predict, but there needs to be some kind of sign so people will say, OK. I'm not losing my job, I got a good job or a raise, so I will shop for a home while interest rate is so low and prices are still reasonably affordable.
Ok I have to admit cutting spending right now would hurt all but at the same time I would like to see a plan to correct this problem not based on fictitious assumptions. The POTUS is standing in front of the country stating we have already cut soooooooooo much when in reality most is savings in wars and improved economy, no cuts.
With all the trouble we have how can we trust a government that just recently approved subsidies for NasCar? Does anyone believe we are saving good jobs by giving money to car racing or was that even the intention? I know this example is a relatively minute amount but you multiply wasteful actions by a few thousand and you are into some real money (I hate it when people say that, I think all money is real and important when we have no way of paying it back).
Government cannot be trusted, and this is not a partisan remark.
I have never trusted the government, but I see we have cut the deficit we have cut spending.
I believe if we had more stimulus, perhaps the economy would be better and that would be a good thing to reduce deficit.
It seems to me too many people are stuck on cut, cut, cut and that would tank it again. I also believe the Rs were hoping a slow recovery would be good for them. I cannot stand people rooting for failure. That IS partisan. They did want to delay and slow recovery for winning AN ELECTION.
That disgusts me. I am also disgusted that the Rs wanted to rig elections by slowing voting and calling it "preventing fraud" which is the thing I cannot tolerate. So, it should not be hard to understand that. There was next to no voter fraud, yet there was a big propaganda push to make people think it.
All that money going into elections, no… cannot trust that, yet T-Pubs do trust that. So, I chose a side, as fighting both sides is a losing battle.
I agree our recovering economy is being held hostage for votes but I believe by both sides. The R's believe the public will want to vote them into office to reduce spending and that will correct the current dire situation and the D's believe they will collect votes by informing people they will benefit from more spending (as you have just mentioned) and that would improve the economy. The problem is both sides are motivated by keeping their jobs or improving their party's position not necessarily the good of the whole.
Where does that leave us?
When the US citizen stops taking party sides and sides with the people, then and only then will true reform and progress occur.
I'm never going to agree with you that the Dems are intentionally holding hostage the economy for votes. Neither will I say to hell with it, both sides are evil. I choose the center left.
I will not say it's hopeless to have government, so scrap it. Nope. I would advise everyone else to get involved, tell elected officials and anyone else what you want done, provided it doesn't come from a place of drown in in a bathtub, or based on misinformation.
Ok, let's create a purely hypothetical scenario on a much debated current issue, Social Security. Let's say a politician has been presented undeniable data, that left untouched, Social Security is going to go broke. I personally don't necessarily believe this but we're going to use this in our hypothetical scenario. And let's say that if this politician believes from the depths of his or her soul that if voted certain cuts and changes in the system not only would it save Social Security it would benefit more people than allowing it to maintain on it's current course. But....this vote would jeopardize a personal gain like cost the politician a position on a Committee that he or she has been striving for, get kicked off a Committee, or God forbid, cost his or her reelection. Knowing the workings of current government, which way do you believe over 90%, Republican or Democrat, would vote?
I think we all know the answer to that question.
I'm not saying not to root for the party that most closely represents your core beliefs but at the same time not be blind to truth and the economy, whether intended or not, is being held hostage by all politicains.
I consider myself far to the left when it comes to social issues and far to the right when it comes to fiscal issues. I like to call it politically Bipolar. I believe all people should be truly treated equally regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, income level or spiritual beliefs but at the same time see no good coming from the country racking up astounding debts and deficits while recklessly spending on things like NasCar, Oil corporation subsidies and thousands of other unnecessary wasteful programs.
If all of us vote for candidates, Republican or Democrat, that will make the tough stands for the good of the whole we would live in a better place.
To endorse true motivation of a politician President Obama put it most eloquently on an unknown open microphone. Speaking to a foreign Head of State President Obama said he would have more flexibility in his second term.
In other words, as soon as his personal gains weren't in jeopardy, he would act on the good of the whole. I believe he is a Democrat. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Using California as an example because it has already announced that its deficit is going down, Paul Krugman wrote about the federal deficit shrinking back in early January (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/california-in-surplus/):
"As this reality becomes more obvious, the deficit scolds will of course go wild. They have staked their careers on crusading against supposedly intractable deficits, and they have their hearts (and more important, their wallets) set on exploiting the alleged fiscal crisis to dismantle social insurance programs. Good news will be a blow to everything they want, and will be furiously and vigorously denied. But once again: deficits are receding as an issue before our eyes."
The deficit never was an economic issue, merely a political one that Republicans thought they could grab onto - all the while ignoring that the debt and deficit soared under George W. Bush with Congressional Republican aiding and abetting the process.
Dr. Krugman also noted that California, whose legislature and governor's office is now controlled by Democrats, has demonstrated that raising taxes on wealthy people can, indeed, contribute to reducing a deficit. Having the economy improving - if slowly - also helps as tax collections begin going up again after a steep drop when the recession hit.
Happy days are here again.
Trust me. No one is going to change their talking points, since no one seems to know the difference between deficits and the National Debt, which continues to rise faster than in the Bush administration. I for one would certainly expect deficits to decline as the economy improves.
Given that money is effectively free to the federal government right now, and will be so into the foreseeable future, Washington has no need to worry about the debt. Indeed, it should be borrowing money massively and spending it like a drunken sailor right now on a huge jobs-slash-infrastructure program to revitalize everything from roads and bridges to schools and hospitals, green energy, high speed rail and mass transit.
This is really going to ruin the Republican response to the State of the Union address.
Not necessarily if you look at it in larger context. Here's part of that larger context. Remember a larger part of that 2009 spike was stimulus spending.
You mean the larger context that deficits are blowing up under republican presidents while they will sharply drop under democratic presidents? At least if you take the last 32 years?
I am not so sure we can attribute the spike to stimulus spending considering the economy was still tanking that year. Most of the stimulus money would not have been spent until the following year. Appropriations may have been increased in 2009 but that spending would not occur in the same year since it takes time for projects to be approved and money distributed to the states and local governments. And as noted below in the madstork123 post, Obama put the wars on the books which is something Bush did not do.
As I see it, the stimulus is the only reason that any of us (including his lowness, "blanks") still have the means by which to post anything @Maddowblog.
Don't forget that 2008 is so low because the Bush administration was keeping the costs of the wars off budget. In 2009 the Obama administration included all the costs.
Thank you, madstork, for reminding us that until President Obama was elected, the wars were paid for by credit. The costs were invisible and not mentioned as contributing to the deficit. President Obama put the two wars publicly into the budget and has gotten flak ever since.
OMG...always Bush's fault. Weak.
When it IS Bush's fault, it's an accurate thing to say. Unless you're going to claim Obama caused Bush to invade AND not budget it AND cut taxes in wartime, there's no other person responsible... and if you claim that, it's "proof or GTFO" time.
Just the facts Cheesy. Bush went to the well of special off budget funding for both wars,
when it IS bush's fault, it is only RIGHT AND FAIR that we place the blame where it belong. W. cooked the books on Medicare part D and the iraqi and afghanistan wars. he PUT EVERYTHING ON THE CREDIT CARD, AND NOW OBAMA GETS THE BLAME FOR THE DEBT. repubs loved and signed on to everything bush wanted. now fox news AND THEIR MOST MISINFORMED VIEWERS, and the repub party HAVE NO IDEA HOW THE DEBT GOT SO HUGE.
just another prime example of repubs BLAMING DEMOCRATS FOR THINGS THAT THEY ARE DOING OR HAVE DONE IN THE PAST. 2 other examples of that would be the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE (repub idea) and also VOTER FRAUD (another repub IDEA)! another example of that would be repubs impeaching President Clinton for lying about about a blow job, because hypocritical repubs (newt gingrich, bob livingston, PRESIDENT H.W. BUSH- all repubs, WOULD NEVER LIE ABOUT A BLOW JOB).
BAHAHAHAA!!!
I see the welfare/free stuff idiot made it back. Please delete the account!
LOL
i see you have some from under whinny shiner re-reg cheese!
next!
LOL
well that`s going to hurt the sock puppets talking points. going to take a while to form new stuff.
"Durp! Free stuff! Durp Liberty! Durrr, Inflation! Benghazi!"
And isn't the 2009 budget a BUSH admin budget (Oct '08 to Oct '09), with Obama putting those "emergency appropriations" (war funding for, what, 6-7 years?) back on the books?
The CBO report is a mixed bag. It does in fact say that deficits will decrease in the first few years of the coming cecade, but that they will then begin to increase later in the decade as more baby boomers begin to retire and go onto Social Security and Medicare. It also notes that spending on Medicare and Medicaid last year was 5% below what CBO had projected 2 years ago, and they have adjusted their projections accordingly. So the fact is that both spending and revenues need more adjustment, especially in the healthcare arena. As long as doctors get paid by procedure instead of results, I think we will healthcare continue to be the big drag on the budget, along with Pentagon budgets that are riddled with waste, fraud and corruption.
Well here`s some more good stuff President Obama can use to slam the Teapublicans in the state of the union.
you know the teapublicans can not handle anymore good news for America, as even their dumbest and lowest informed are starting to catch on. LOL with that said present company accepted. as we all know who you are.
You sure talk alot, but say nothing...
LOL
said enough to know that you seem to be on the not catching on side.
The CBO report also assumes that the sequester remains in place. If that is somehow watered down or completely ignored, we end up with something like an extra $1.6 trillion added to the deficit over the decade. Cutting welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid may get you a lot of the savings you want, but it does not eliminate the issues those programs are there to deal with. Cutting welfare does not mean the poor go away. They will still be there, and in very desperate straits. Cutting social security doesn't get rid of retirees, as they will still need to have places to live, food to eat, and electricty and water bills to pay. Cutting medicare and medicaid doesn't magically eliminate those who are sick, it simply means that they will remain sick, putting an even bigger financial drain on hospitals that have to deal with the uninsured. Those costs will then be passed on to those who are insured.
Uffdaguy,
I have read that people pretending to be journalists and pundits read these comments. You should be banned for making a very profound point those guys are paid a lot of money to ignore.
Great comment.
Republican response: "Umm, Umm, Kenya!"
"Bengazi! Abortion! Guns! Family values!"
"Balanced",,,Obummer code for higher tax rates..
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, I remain optimistic that someday, sometime we will discover something that conservatives/Republicans are right about.
Did you burst a blood vessel thinking that one up?????
they never get tied of being wrong.
LOL
Conservatives are/were right about conserving our natural resources. But some lobbyist convinced them "conservation" is a bad word. Replace that word with tree hugger and we should exploit and bleed all recourses until they are all gone and any kind pollution is to be scoffed reflexively.
Going into the negotiations over the fiscal cliff, Obama had two objectives. First, he had to prevent tax increases and further cuts to government spending that would imperil the recovery.
^ Uh no. He never wanted the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. His objective was not to prevent tax increase on the wealthy, but rather to raise taxes on the wealthy and keep them low for everyone else.
This is exactly what he promised to do during his campaign, and it's what he did, so I have no idea why you are arguing over it.
$430 billion would be incredible. Can this happen so fast?
We simply have to look across the pond to Europe to see what austerity measures do to exacerbate the EC members' fiscal problems. Obama wants a balanced approach, combining spending cuts with revenue generation by closing tax loopholes for big corporations and the wealthiest individuals - including technical adjustments to Social Security increases - which will further eat into our debt problems. One only has to look at OMB's projections to see that. Too many Republicans are stubbornly tied to ideology and can't seem to see the "fiscal trees through the forest."
OH....Please do some investigating on SUBJECT BEFORE commenting...The Interest rate ALONE on the Deficift can NEVER be paid off. The (IMAGINERY) Interest rate is what keeps the Debt growing every year. The Government FUDGES the numbers as they see fit .
How many Bankers are serving PRISON time for Stealing the countries money & increasing the debt ? The BANKERS run this country. It is ALL SMOKE & MIRRORS !
OH..It's ALL Smoke & Mirrors. The Bankers run America. They can make the numbers say whatever they want. Obama & his Jewish cabinet are but puppets for the REAL Controllers of American Finance.
How many Bankers are serving Prison time for the (planned) financial meltdown ? They got 1 fall guy, Maddoff. SORRY....need to look at the LARGER picture planned.
How about covering why Obama refuses to prosecute the Banksters but is super willing to bust Medical Marijuana growers? How about his expansion of warrantless wiretaps? Drone wars? Kill lists? Sorry but MSNBC is nothing more than the DNC version of Fox.