Who is your choice for President?

[Stephanie]

I think Bush has done a fine job. You may now return to your doom and gloom.

Was that list that you provided supposed to support President Bush Jara? :-?

[stormchazer]

Wasn't there a $200 Billion surplus when he took over and now we are $500 billion in the hole?

There never was a surplus. It is smoke and mirrors. At best, the years of so called Budget surplus meant we were not adding to the debt less interest. The government was still in debt. They also used Social Security money that is suppose to be set aside for retires, but they always count it in the General Fund. This is a bipartison issue, Republicans and Democrats use it. It was hype.

Balanced Budget? Not Really


by Fred E. Foldvary, Senior Editor
A budget is really and truly balanced when its income equals all its current and expected expenses. If you get $100 in income and expect to receive a bill for $100 which you have to pay, but spend the money now because the bill has not arrived, is your budget balanced? No, it is not, because the $100 you owe is a liability that has to be offset with income if your budget is truly balanced.

This principle applies to the federal budget too. President Clinton says that the budget of the federal government will be balanced and in surplus during the next few years. The deficit this year is project at only $5 billion. But the future surplus is a bookkeeping fiction, the result of how the government does its accounting. The operating budget is balanced because revenue from trust funds such as social security is included in the total, and social security now has a big surplus. Next year, the trust-fund surpluses are projected to total $184 billion. These funds will go to the $1.7 trillion general budget, but since these are not operating tax monies, the federal government is really borrowing this money. So the real deficit is $184 billion. With this realistic accounting, there will be no real budget surpluses.

Each $100 in social security surplus funds coming in today is money owed to recipients in the future. Likewise, surplus funds from the highway trust fund are offset by liabilities, namely the highway repairs and improvements that the money should be spent for in the future. In proper accounting, these revenues are not positive but neutral: the assets are offset by liabilities. Even though it is one government agency borrowing from another, because of the unfunded liabilities, the operating budget of the U.S. government will continue to be in deficit.

President Clinton at least recognizes that the so-called "surplus" should be used to finance the social security system (that the social security system is unstable in the long run and should be reformed is a another issue). What would really happen in that case is that in borrowing money from the social security administration but not spending it, the government would be reducing its debt. It would be buying back its treasury bonds, or equivalently, issuing fewer as they renew. That's why debt reduction should be the prime policy for the fictitious budget surplus.

This does not mean that tax reform should be abandoned. Not at all. Changing the tax system is a separate issue, and should be pursued as well, for the sake of the economy and for justice. For example, the marriage penalty should be eliminated. It is hypocritical for politicians to make pompous exclamations about family values while they punish people for being married by making them pay more taxes than single people with the same income.

Of course the best long-run reform for the budget and for taxes is to shift from taxing productive action to obtaining revenue from the rental value of land. If that were done, then there would be little difference between taxation and government borrowing, since future liabilities would become present-day obligations of landowners, and there would be tremendous political opposition to future liabilities that, when added to current spending, exceed the rent. The public collection of rent would be the greatest budget balancer ever. But until that glorious day comes, could we at least try to get some honest accounting in the federal budget?

Don't believe that hype!

[southerngale]

Good posts Jara and Tim.

Tim...amazingly enough, even though your numbers show otherwise, some people will still talk about how bad unemployment, poverty, etc. is under Bush. However, worse numbers were considered "good" under Clinton.

[JQ Public]

Government spending under the bush admin per household is more than it has been for 40+ years! Almost $2000 than the average government spending per household during the 1990's!

[Stephanie]

Okay Jara, then we're saying that the deficit under Bush is actually worse if we use that line of thinking for Bush? We can't have a double standard.

[george_r_1961]

I dont know who I am voting for yet..just who I wont be voting for..thats Bush. Im not that comfortable with Kerry either. Ive almost always voted republican but that wont be the case this year.

[southerngale]

May I ask why George? You should take part in voting for a President who will go down in history as one of the best presidents ever.

[stormchazer]

Okay Jara, then we're saying that the deficit under Bush is actually worse if we use that line of thinking for Bush? We can't have a double standard.

That was not the fact I was refuting but since you brought it up, read the little tidbit below. Pay paticular attention to the footnote about times of war. Also, the big deficits seem to all follow periods of increased taxation. The deficit reduces on average, 3 years after major tax cuts.

Biggest Deficit in History? Yes and No
Half a trillion dollars is the most ever, but several others have been worse relative to the size of the economy.

February 27, 2004
Modified:February 27, 2004
Summary

Kerry said Feb. 26 that Bush’s budget deficit is “the largest in history.” But by the most important measure that’s not quite true.

This year the deficit is projected to be in the neighborhood of half a trillion dollars, a record. That’s 4.5% of the entire economy, a figure large enough to worry Alan Greenspan and others concerned about a drag on future economic growth. But it was even higher in both the Reagan administration and in the term of Bush's father.

Analysis

The federal deficit for fiscal year 2004 (which ends Sept. 30) is projected by the President’s Office of Management and Budget to be $521 billion. The Congressional Budget Office is predicting a somewhat lower total of $477 billion. But either would easily exceed the previous record deficit of $375 billion set last year. That in turn broke the previous record of $290 billion, which was reached under Bush’s father in 1992.


Bush in red: Clinton in dark blue



Source: Table 1.3 Budget of the United States Government: Fiscal Year 2005 Historical Tables

But the most important measure of the deficit is not the size in dollars, or even the size in dollars after adjusting for inflation. The most important measure is the size relative to the nation’s economic output, what economists call Gross Domestic Product or GDP. And in fact, the current projected deficit was equaled or exceeded in four years during the Reagan administration and two years in the term of Bush’s father.


Source: Table 1.3 Budget of the United States Government: Fiscal Year 2005 Historical Tables



Still, there's little question that the deficit is far too big by any measure. President Bush himself admits as much, and is promsing to cut the deficit in half within two years. And on Feb. 25 Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he feared deficits are again becoming chronic, and threatening to drag down economic growth in the future.

Footnote: The biggest deficits by far -- measured as a percentage of the economy -- came during World War II. In 1943 the deficit was $54.3 billion -- which today would amount to little more than rounding error. But back then it amounted to more than 30% of the wartime economy. Nothing since the war years has come close.

Sources

Budget Of The United States Government: Fiscal Year 2005 Historical Tables "Table 1.3 —Summary Of Receipts, Outlays, And Surpluses Or Deficits (−) In Current Dollars, Constant (FY 2000) Dollars, And As Percentages Of GDP: 1940–2009" Jan 2004.

US Congress, Congressional Budget Office “Monthly Budget Review ” 6 Feb 2004.

Alan Greenspan "Economic outlook and current fiscal issues" Testimony before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives 25 Feb 2004.

Oh and note this...

President Bush himself admits as much, and is promsing to cut the deficit in half within two years. And on Feb. 25 Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said he feared deficits are again becoming chronic, and threatening to drag down economic growth in the future.

The President is not running away from this fact. Try to get John Fing Kerry to ever admit he made any mistakes. Of course when your busy waffling, its hard to admit anything.

I do not know what I would do If you weren't always hammering on me Stephanie.

[JQ Public]

Government spending under the bush admin per household is more than it has been for 40+ years! Almost $2000 than the average government spending per household during the 1990's!

I wholeheartedly agree jq

I thought y'all wanted less big government spending?

[stormchazer]

Government spending under the bush admin per household is more than it has been for 40+ years! Almost $2000 than the average government spending per household during the 1990's!

I wholeheartedly agree jq

I thought y'all wanted less big government spending?

Yes, I do want smaller government, but we will not get that with Kerry. Judging by the Presidents comments in the last few months, he sees that he must curb the deficit growth.

[wx247]

Government spending under the bush admin per household is more than it has been for 40+ years! Almost $2000 than the average government spending per household during the 1990's!

I wholeheartedly agree jq

I thought y'all wanted less big government spending?

Yes, I do want smaller government, but we will not get that with Kerry. Judging by the Presidents comments in the last few months, he sees that he must curb the deficit growth.

Was that yesterday or this morning? I get lost in Kerry's change in positions.

[Stephanie]

Jara -

I understand that he's concerned with the deficit and yes there would be one during and after a war. My point is that we had money that could've been used towards funding the war, we've known all along that SS was a major problem yet we're still trying to push through a tax credit? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Lindaloo]

You are seeing the damage by the Clinton Administration. Don't blame it on Bush.

[Stephanie]

Okay Linda.

[stormchazer]

Jara -

I understand that he's concerned with the deficit and yes there would be one during and after a war. My point is that we had money that could've been used towards funding the war, we've known all along that SS was a major problem yet we're still trying to push through a tax credit? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Because when you cut taxes, it actually increases tax reciepts. People spend more, invest more, and more people increase in income, therefore increasing the amount of tax paid. The only "cost" to tax cuts is the cost of Congress not being able to spend more of your money. Remember as a kid having that money "burning a hole in your pocket"? Well many of us grow up to be politicians. For example...

$107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail.
$1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck.
$150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud.
$84,000 to find out why people fall in love.
$1 million to study why people don't ride bikes to work.
$19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence.
$144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws.
Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys.
$219,000 to teach college students how to watch television.
$2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe.
$20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges.
$160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest.
$800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley.
$100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft.
$16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument.
$1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument.
$6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce.
$10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull's potency.
$100,000 to research soybean-based ink.
$1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center.
$57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two.
Total: $ 45,980,000

or....

$3.1 million to convert a ferry boat into a crab restaurant in Baltimore.
$6.4 million for a Bavarian ski resort in Kellogg, Idaho.
$13 million to repair a privately owned dam in South Carolina.
$4.3 million for a privately owned museum in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.
$11 million for a private pleasure boat harbor in Cleveland.
$6 million to repair tracks owned by the Soo Railroad Line.
$320,000 to purchase President McKinley's mother-in-law's house. Funds to rehabilitate the South Carolina mansion of Charles Pickney, a Framer of the Constitution, even though the house was built after he died.
$2.7 million for a catfish farm in Arkansas.
$3 million for private parking garages in Chicago.
$500,000 to build a replica of the Great Pyramid of Egypt in Indiana.
$850,000 for a bicycle path in Macomb County, Michigan.
$10 million for an access ramp in a privately owned stadium in Milwaukee.
$1.8 million for an engineering study to convert Biscayne Boulevard in Miami into an "Exotic Garden."
$13 million for an industrial theme park in Pennsylvania.
$500,000 for a museum to honor former Secretary of State Cordell Hull.
$33 million to pump sand onto the private beaches of Miami hotels.
Total: $109,470,000

or

$6 million to upgrade the two-block long Senate subway.
$350,000 to renovate the House Beauty Salon.
$250,000 to study TV lighting in the Senate meeting rooms.
$130,000 for a Congressional video-conferencing project.
Total: $6,730,000

You think that the money given back in tax cuts would help?

[Stephanie]

It would've helped more important projects than the pork barrel items and waste that you've shown above. I would certainly hope that those that are concerned about the deficit would be looking hard at those expenditures above - but I think we both know better!

[george_r_1961]

lets not forget the private bowling alley for our esteemed members of congress..and the free medical care they recieve

[VanceWxMan]

Pres. Bush for me as well.

1. Christian Man
2. Is the best man for the job and the time that we are in....we can't have some moron Democrat get into the white house and try to so-called FIX the situation so that they will be happy. That will throw the entire nation into turmoil (IMHO)
3. Pro Life
4. Christian
5. Hmm I already said Christian......

some things I would like to see changed, but as an armed forces member I will BACK the Commander and Chief FULLY...until its a stupid democrat then its MUTINY :p

Aaron

[Lindaloo]

Well said Aaron.

[rainstorm]

May I ask why George? You should take part in voting for a President who will go down in history as one of the best presidents ever.

heres my take sg. the liberals control the press. if bush is defeated, and that seems likely, they will call him a president that was never elected. i dont agree, but thats the way it is