Bush budget goal

[Donutboy 0]

Dec. 12, 2003  |  WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's budget for the coming election year will chart a course for cutting federal deficits in half within the next five years, a top White House budget official said Friday.

Administration officials have been citing that as a goal for several months, even as government red ink has surged to record levels. White House budget chief Joshua Bolten has acknowledged that an unprecedented $500 billion shortfall is likely this year, making the goal a $250 billion deficit by 2009.

Bush's predecessor, President Clinton, presided over four straight years of budget surpluses.

The budget theme is emerging at a time when the Bush administration is under fire from conservatives for allowing spending to grow too rapidly, and for not being aggressive enough in dealing with the red ink.

Bush plan would halve deficit in 5 years

Whoohoo, that'd amount to only a half trillion dolar turnaround from Clinton's $236 billion surplus in his last year of office. I can't begin to imagine where they'd make enough cuts to make up for any budget shortcomings. I'm certain we'll be getting details in the coming weeks though. :roll:

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Here's another spin on this for you - just another viewpoint. Originally published in the LA Times - unfortunately you have to register to read the whole article and then you have to PAY to read the whole article, so be my guest - I am just going to post the exceprt I read in a magazine because of the interesting point he makes. Note: Yes, Gelernter is a conservative, a computer scientist and he was also a Unabomber victim. Just an interesting tidbit. If someone can find the whole article on a free site, feel free to post a link.

The way some people fret about the burden the Bush Administration's deficits will place on our kids, you'd think a serious moral issues was at stake, said David Gelernter in the Los Angeles Times.  Have these critics heard of long-term debt?  "If I take out a 20-year mortgage on my house, that doesn't mean I'm inflicting my debts on my children or the 'next generation'"  All generations benefit from home ownership, just as all generations will benefit from the ouster of anti-American dictators in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Our kids will probably thank us for making the world safer "and write books about what a great generation we were."  Moreover, big deficits tend to become small ones in the long run.  Massive shortfalls in the early '80s preceded "a strong and sustained economic boom, and in percentage terms, lower deficits."  In fact, surpluses are more of a moral problem than deficits.  When Washington hoards our money to keep us from spending it on something frivolous, it becomes "an officious, well-meaning crook."  Our children will take prudent deficits over immoral surpluses any day.

[AUloggerhead 2,255]

Dec. 12, 2003 

... Bush's predecessor, President Clinton, presided over four straight years of budget surpluses.  ...

Whoohoo, that'd amount to only a half trillion dolar turnaround from Clinton's $236 billion surplus in his last year of office. I can't begin to imagine where they'd make enough cuts to make up for any budget shortcomings. I'm certain we'll be getting details in the coming weeks though. :roll:

It's a plan, nothing more. And any congress receiving a budget plan from a President, whether it proposes to eliminate, maintain or increase a budget deficit can do with the plan what they will. The Constitution empowers the legislative branch with raising revenue & spending it through appropriation bills. Thus, any resulting budget deficit or surplus should be directly attributed with the congress that created it, not necessarily the president in office at the time. Look at the wording in that article you cited: " ... clinton, presided over four straight years of budget surpluses." Never a truer statement made. clinton presided. He did not plan for any surpluses to occur during his time in office and he had absoulutely zero input into the appropriations bills that the Republican-led congresses placed on his desk. His choice was simply to sign or veto. Without the Republicans controlling Congress at the time, there never would have been a budget surplus.

Here was clinton's 1992 election plan for "reducing the deficit." (Note that clinton never said here's my plan for a budget surplus.) This same plan was touted all during his campaign and he even bragged that a bunch of Nobel laureates in economics had reviewed & endorsed his "plan." It consisted of 3 parts:

1. A middle class tax cut.

2. An Economic Stimulus Package (Democratize for more new federal spending, something like $80 B if I remember correctly.)

3. National Health Insurance for everbody.

And to top it all off, his plan would balance the budget in 2005 or 2006 -- long after he was out of office. Thankfully, none of his "plan" ever came to pass. The middle class tax cut campaign promise was as empty as his marrige vows. Within one month of taking office, he stated the budget deficit was "higher than he originally thought" and therefore, he had to abandon that plank. The economic Stimulus Package was fillibustered in the Senate. Even with their clear majority, the Dems lacked one vote to overrule the fillibuster. And the National Health Insurance committee with his wife, Hillary on board, crashed & burned under the weight of an unworkable system.

Like I said before, clinton only "presided" over budget surpluses because of the Republican-led Congresses (plural, thanks to bill ) during 6 of his 8 years in office.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

my favorite sentence in DBs posted article:

Bush's predecessor, President Clinton, presided over four straight years of budget surpluses.

there it sits... out by itself...a paragraph in & of itself. as if clinton's mere presence created those surpluses... unfortunately, some people actually believe that to be true...and apparently they are journalists.

presided indeed...

maybe bush could have had surpluses too if he hadn't had to deal with the recession clinton left him with.

hey! shallow liberal logic & reasoning is fun!

ct