blueturk
07-11-2006, 10:52 PM
"It's your money. You paid for it." —George W. Bush, LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000
How can I possibly dispute the Bush administrations financial wisdom in the face of such "good news for the American taxpayer? Things are going great! What I don't understand is why the sheep didn't jump on this fantastic news...
Bush Credits Tax Cuts for Deficit Shrinkage
By Joel Havemann, Times Staff Writer
11:03 AM PDT, July 11, 2006
WASHINGTON -- President Bush today delivered what he called "some good news for the American taxpayer" — a budget update that shows the deficit for this year shrinking from the $423 billion forecast five months ago to $296 billion now.
Bush's budget office said faster-than-expected increases in tax revenues accounted for $115 billion of the improvement.
"The tax cuts we passed worked," Bush told a White House audience of aides and Republican members of Congress. The president said the tax cuts generated unexpected economic activity and therefore tax revenue.
Most Democrats were unimpressed. Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, pointed out that when Bush came into office in January 2001, the official White House budget projection showed a $305-billion surplus. So the new projected deficit of $296 billion represents a swing of $600 billion, Spratt said.
"Today's news is not cause for complacency, much less celebration," Spratt said.
Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, pointed out that the 2006 deficit comes on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation, which will begin to qualify for Social Security benefits in 2008 and Medicare coverage in 2011.
Adjusted for inflation, tax revenues have only now surpassed the levels of 2000, Conrad said. In 2002, the White House estimated that revenues would reach $2.5 trillion in 2006 under the tax laws then in effect. The revenue re-estimate issued today was $2.4 trillion.
Spending re-estimates contributed $12 billion to the decline in the projected 2006 deficit in the past five months, compared with $115 billion for revenue re-estimates.
Altogether, spending is responsible for more of the swing toward red ink since 2002 than revenue. Spending in 2006 was projected in 2002, based on laws then in effect, to reach about $2.2 trillion; it is now estimated at $2.7 trillion.
In rough terms, the Defense Department accounted for the biggest share of the increase, about $200 billion. Next came the Treasury Department, which pays interest on the rising national debt, at $60 billion.
The Health and Human Services Department (largely Medicare, which added a prescription drug program) was responsible for $50 billion, followed by the Agriculture Department ($30 billion), the Homeland Security Department ($15 billion) and the Social Security Administration ($10 billion).
Bush pledged to concentrate his deficit-reducing efforts on spending control.
"It's OK to create revenue growth," he said. "But if we spend all that revenue growth on wasteful programs, it's not going to help us meet our objectives."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-071106budget,0,4084159.story?coll=la-story-footer
How can I possibly dispute the Bush administrations financial wisdom in the face of such "good news for the American taxpayer? Things are going great! What I don't understand is why the sheep didn't jump on this fantastic news...
Bush Credits Tax Cuts for Deficit Shrinkage
By Joel Havemann, Times Staff Writer
11:03 AM PDT, July 11, 2006
WASHINGTON -- President Bush today delivered what he called "some good news for the American taxpayer" — a budget update that shows the deficit for this year shrinking from the $423 billion forecast five months ago to $296 billion now.
Bush's budget office said faster-than-expected increases in tax revenues accounted for $115 billion of the improvement.
"The tax cuts we passed worked," Bush told a White House audience of aides and Republican members of Congress. The president said the tax cuts generated unexpected economic activity and therefore tax revenue.
Most Democrats were unimpressed. Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, pointed out that when Bush came into office in January 2001, the official White House budget projection showed a $305-billion surplus. So the new projected deficit of $296 billion represents a swing of $600 billion, Spratt said.
"Today's news is not cause for complacency, much less celebration," Spratt said.
Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, pointed out that the 2006 deficit comes on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation, which will begin to qualify for Social Security benefits in 2008 and Medicare coverage in 2011.
Adjusted for inflation, tax revenues have only now surpassed the levels of 2000, Conrad said. In 2002, the White House estimated that revenues would reach $2.5 trillion in 2006 under the tax laws then in effect. The revenue re-estimate issued today was $2.4 trillion.
Spending re-estimates contributed $12 billion to the decline in the projected 2006 deficit in the past five months, compared with $115 billion for revenue re-estimates.
Altogether, spending is responsible for more of the swing toward red ink since 2002 than revenue. Spending in 2006 was projected in 2002, based on laws then in effect, to reach about $2.2 trillion; it is now estimated at $2.7 trillion.
In rough terms, the Defense Department accounted for the biggest share of the increase, about $200 billion. Next came the Treasury Department, which pays interest on the rising national debt, at $60 billion.
The Health and Human Services Department (largely Medicare, which added a prescription drug program) was responsible for $50 billion, followed by the Agriculture Department ($30 billion), the Homeland Security Department ($15 billion) and the Social Security Administration ($10 billion).
Bush pledged to concentrate his deficit-reducing efforts on spending control.
"It's OK to create revenue growth," he said. "But if we spend all that revenue growth on wasteful programs, it's not going to help us meet our objectives."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-071106budget,0,4084159.story?coll=la-story-footer