A mid-year White House report will tout fiscal progress with a projected U.S. budget deficit for this year of around $420 billion — nearly $100 billion less than the forecast offered five months ago, congressional sources said on Tuesday.
A congressional aide who declined to be identified told Reuters that the $420 billion figure is “what people are talking about” on Capitol Hill.The budget projection will be part of a mid-session budget report that the White House will be putting out, possibly as early as this week. Originally due on July 15, the document was delayed after officials in the Office of Management and Budget sought extra time to update their figures in light of improving economic conditions that have fueled higher tax revenues.
The greatest failure of the Bush presidency so far can be attributed to that fateful date when the Supreme Court ruled the presidential veto unconstitutional. Wait- you mean that didn’t happen?
Sure- the deficit is smaller than projected. But $420 billion?????? Jeebus.
Thief
The veto, no. The line-item veto, yes.
Idiots.
platosearwax
I really think this is a symptom of one party controlling things. When the Dem’s control most of the government we get more spending and higher taxes. When the Repub’s control most of the government we get more spending and higher debt.
Vote for gridlock, it’s the only way.
Kimmitt
“When the Dem’s control most of the government we get more spending and higher taxes.”
This turns out not to be the case; Federal spending as a percentage of GDP declined over both of the years where the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency (1993-1994).
We did get higher taxes, but on the other hand, we also got surpluses, and they didn’t seem to slow the economy down much.
Source: Congressional Budget Office
Slartibartfast
Gee, that couldn’t be at least in part due to record economic growth, now could it?
Rick
So what’s all this I’m hearing from the Lefties about Dubya being such a radical right-wing conservative extremist? Legal Services Corp. and other unconstitutional abominations (thanks heaps, LBJ & RMN) are still being increasingly funded, aren’t they.
So lay off the conservative bit, and bash Bush for his big government folly.
Kimmitt
“Gee, that couldn’t be at least in part due to record economic growth, now could it?”
’93 and ’94 were good years, but not at all record-breaking. They enjoyed 2.7 and 4.0% growth, respectively. The thing about the Clinton years wasn’t the enormity of the growth — no year was spectacular — but the fact that growth simply occurred year after year after year, causing the deficit to shrink and finally disappear. It was a graphic disproof of the notion that economic growth in the US required deficit spending.
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States.