Bush deficit reduction plan: step 1 - use made-up numbers

[Ladewig]

Last month, GW Bush announced that he intended to reduce the national deficit by one half in five years. Using generally accepted accounting, that would mean that because the U.S. government spent in 2004, $413 billion more than it took in, the target deficit for the year after Bush leaves office should be $207 billion. However, using GOP-accepted accounting, the target deficit for 2009 is $260 billion because at the beginning of 2004, the Bush administration projected a $520 billion deficit for the year.

NY Times story

I have been accused of Bush-bashing in the past and maybe I was unfair in my criticism of the Bush administration, but surely everyone on this board can agree that that kind of math is just plain kooky and not based in any rational use of language.

 

[Mycroft]

I dunno. It seems to me that if they went from a 520 billion dollar projected deficit to a 413 billion dollar actual deficit on only one year, that they should be able to balance the budget in 5 years, not just cut the deficit in half.

 

[WildCat]

First thing they teach you in business school is "Beware of projected numbers". They are often meaningless, as many things can change and usually do. Lots of things are assumed that shouldn't be.

 

[SezMe]

Two other real head-scratchers are:

1) The cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are excluded from the budget. Rationale? They are difficult to predict. Hmmm, does that mean that all the other items in the budget are easy to predict.

2) The cost of the privitization of Social Security. Bush has announced this as a high priority item yet excludes it's costs from the budget.

In other words, the published budget is a political document, not a planning document.

 

[Ladewig]

So, anyone want to defend Bush's approach on this issue?


............................. . . . . . . . . . . . .

If they are starting with an estimated figure, then why not just finish with a projected figure and call it a success: "We project the 2009 deficit to be $260 billion. We acheived our goal."

 

[Smike]

On the other hand, getting the deficit down to $260 billion would still be pretty good, no?

 

[Tricky]

On the other hand, getting the deficit down to $260 billion would still be pretty good, no?

Only if it is real. If two of the biggest "budget busters" are excluded, then is not worth a bucket of warm spit (to paraphrase John Nance).

 

[Ladewig]

On the other hand, getting the deficit down to $260 billion would still be pretty good, no?

No. The whole plan isn't worth jack because we could run deficits of $800 billion for the next four years and then have a balanced budget in 2009. We end up $3.2 trillion more in debt, but we would hit the goal of meeting the target numbers for 2009.

Real committments involve limiting deficits for each of the next five years, not limiting the deficit for only the fifth year.

To be fair on Bush, I have no idea how to significantly reduce the deficit in each of the next five years; doing so is no small task. The point I want to make is picking target numbers for a budget for the year after GW Bush leaves office is pretty much meaningless.

 

[Nikk]

To be fair on Bush, I have no idea how to significantly reduce the deficit in each of the next five years; doing so is no small task. The point I want to make is picking target numbers for a budget for the year after GW Bush leaves office is pretty much meaningless.

In order to get some idea of the likely accuracy of a figure projected for 5 years in the future one could look at the projections made in autumn 1999 for the end of the 2004 fiscal year.

Anyone have them to hand?

 

[Brown]

You can't spell B-U-L-L-S-H-*-* without B-U-S-H.

Little Bush spoke recently about Social Security. Much of what he said was bullsh**. His "plan," of which only one part has been disclosed, is bullsh**.

Little Bush then started pontificating about "junk lawsuits." The problem is real, but it isn't the problem that little Bush says it is, and his "solution" was more stinking bullsh**.

When liitle Bush starts dipping into economics, you can bet that the same guy who accused Al Gore of "fuzzy math" is going to try to sell us his very own brand of "bullsh** math."

Folks, we've just seen the beginning. Get out your scoop shovels, because there's more Bush bullsh** on the way.

 

[gnome]

That is one thing I will always appreciate Clinton for, despite the blemishes on his term.

Reagan and Bush Sr. struggled with the deficit, and it seemed a problem as intractable as the Cold War.

Clinton took over and began reductions immediately, in linear steps, until it was gone. Made it look easy.

(I will give Bush Sr. some credit, I have the impression he began real steps towards that goal before leaving office and may have managed a fair stab at it, had he been re-elected.)

 

[Brown]

(I will give Bush Sr. some credit, I have the impression he began real steps towards that goal before leaving office and may have managed a fair stab at it, had he been re-elected.)

Elder Bush did take steps toward fiscal responsibility by stepping away, at least a little bit, from the voo-doo economics of Ronald Reagan. As a result, he infuriated conservative voters, outraged that elder Bush had gone back on his word that there would be "No new taxes."