CBO shows decline in budget deficit

[Auburn85 438]

http://thehill.com/b...deficit-decline

Erik Wasson

The Congressional Budget Office reported Tuesday that the federal budget deficit is declining this year compared to fiscal 2012.

For the first seven months of 2013, the deficit was $489 billion. That is $231 billion less than the budget shortfall for the comparable period last year.

The decrease is almost entirely due to revenue increases. Revenues rose $200 billion and spending decreased only $11 billion.

Individual income tax and social insurance payroll taxes are up 16 percent this year compared to last year.

In January, Congress and the White House agreed to allow income taxes on those making more than $400,000 per year to rise and to end a 2-percentage point payroll tax holiday for all workers.

That has contributed to $132 billion more in income taxes and $52 billion more in payroll tax revenue, CBO estimated.

On the spending side, major discretionary items like defense saw notable decreases, but the mandatory entitlement programs continued their relentless march upward in cost.

Whereas defense spending has fallen by $20 billion, spending increased by $25 billion for Social Security and $15 billion for Medicare as the baby boomer generation ages into retirement.

In monthly terms, April saw its first surplus since 2008. The month is normally strong due to the influx of tax payments and this year, a $112 billion surplus was recorded.

[autigeremt 7,260]

The decrease is almost entirely due to revenue increases. Revenues rose $200 billion and spending decreased only $11 billion.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

The decrease is almost entirely due to revenue increases. Revenues rose $200 billion and spending decreased only $11 billion.

THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^

Get back to us when they cut spending.

[augolf1716 22,040]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[AUloggerhead 2,582]

The decrease is almost entirely due to revenue increases. Revenues rose $200 billion and spending decreased only $11 billion.

Just imagine what the deficit would look like if there was a "balanced" approach to it -- equal parts spending cuts and revenue increases?

[ToomersRevenge 284]

The decrease is almost entirely due to revenue increases. Revenues rose $200 billion and spending decreased only $11 billion.

Just imagine what the deficit would look like if there was a "balanced" approach to it -- equal parts spending cuts and revenue increases?

I'd imagine that if it were equal parts then it'd be twice as large...

[TexasTiger 14,557]

The decrease is almost entirely due to revenue increases. Revenues rose $200 billion and spending decreased only $11 billion.

Just imagine what the deficit would look like if there was a "balanced" approach to it -- equal parts spending cuts and revenue increases?

I'd imagine that if it were equal parts then it'd be twice as large...

Actually, it would be either 400 billion less or 22 billion less.

[homersapien 12,350]

The decrease is almost entirely due to revenue increases. Revenues rose $200 billion and spending decreased only $11 billion.

Just imagine what the deficit would look like if there was a "balanced" approach to it -- equal parts spending cuts and revenue increases?

That's generally true for the longer term, but it's not that simple.

The problem is that spending cuts are more likely to extend a recession. Getting out of the recession is the quickest way to reduce the deficient (by increasing revenue) so it's quite possible immediate spending cuts could be counter-productive in the longer term.

Of course, some spending is more of an investment into future growth (such as basic research) than other spending. So you want to be very careful about reducing spending in those categories not to inhibit future growth.

[autigeremt 7,260]

The decrease is almost entirely due to revenue increases. Revenues rose $200 billion and spending decreased only $11 billion.

Just imagine what the deficit would look like if there was a "balanced" approach to it -- equal parts spending cuts and revenue increases?

That's generally true for the longer term, but it's not that simple.

The problem is that spending cuts are more likely to extend a recession. Getting out of the recession is the quickest way to reduce the deficient (by increasing revenue) so it's quite possible immediate spending cuts could be counter-productive in the longer term.

Of course, some spending is more of an investment into future growth (such as basic research) than other spending. So you want to be very careful about reducing spending in those categories not to inhibit future growth.

According to Obama the recession ended a couple of years ago.

[homersapien 12,350]

The decrease is almost entirely due to revenue increases. Revenues rose $200 billion and spending decreased only $11 billion.

Just imagine what the deficit would look like if there was a "balanced" approach to it -- equal parts spending cuts and revenue increases?

That's generally true for the longer term, but it's not that simple.

The problem is that spending cuts are more likely to extend a recession. Getting out of the recession is the quickest way to reduce the deficient (by increasing revenue) so it's quite possible immediate spending cuts could be counter-productive in the longer term.

Of course, some spending is more of an investment into future growth (such as basic research) than other spending. So you want to be very careful about reducing spending in those categories not to inhibit future growth.

According to Obama the recession ended a couple of years ago.

Well actually, it did for investors and those who work on Wall Street.

And it may be that simple positive GNP growth is enough to technically "end" a recession (I don't know what the standards are)

But I am referring more to unemployment, which is a more subjective - if not more human - way to evaluate it.

[autigeremt 7,260]

The decrease is almost entirely due to revenue increases. Revenues rose $200 billion and spending decreased only $11 billion.

Just imagine what the deficit would look like if there was a "balanced" approach to it -- equal parts spending cuts and revenue increases?

That's generally true for the longer term, but it's not that simple.

The problem is that spending cuts are more likely to extend a recession. Getting out of the recession is the quickest way to reduce the deficient (by increasing revenue) so it's quite possible immediate spending cuts could be counter-productive in the longer term.

Of course, some spending is more of an investment into future growth (such as basic research) than other spending. So you want to be very careful about reducing spending in those categories not to inhibit future growth.

According to Obama the recession ended a couple of years ago. ;)/>

Well actually, it did for investors and those who work on Wall Street.

And it may be that simple positive GNP growth is enough to technically "end" a recession (I don't know what the standards are)

But I am referring more to unemployment, which is a more subjective - if not more human - way to evaluate it.

And you just confirmed what I've been saying for 5 plus years. The President is just like all the others. Wall St. and special interests own the man.

[Wareagletd 0]

CBO = Cheddar, Bacon, Onion right?

[japantiger 4,181]

The decrease is almost entirely due to revenue increases. Revenues rose $200 billion and spending decreased only $11 billion.

Just imagine what the deficit would look like if there was a "balanced" approach to it -- equal parts spending cuts and revenue increases?

I'd imagine that if it were equal parts then it'd be twice as large...

Actually, it would be either 400 billion less or 22 billion less.

Yep...so much for balance...where are the other $189B in spending cuts? Second point that chaps my ass is the government using the term "Revenue" to describe tax take. Revenue is the product of the sales of goods and services to customers...the government does not engage in Revenue generating activity....Call taxes what they are; confiscation of private property by the government.