More Good News for Deficit Hawks

[djAdvocate]

totally unreported in the "liberal" media:

U.S. Deficit Cut by Almost One-Third to $492 Billion: CBO
By Derek Wallbank Apr 14, 2014 12:48 PM PT

The 2014 deficit will be 2.8 percent of the economy, according to the Congressional... Read More
Related

White House Press Briefing: Health Law, Ukraine

The U.S. government’s deficit will fall to $492 billion this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a steeper drop than originally predicted from $680 billion in fiscal year 2013.

The 2014 deficit will be 2.8 percent of the economy, according to CBO, almost 32 percent below fiscal year 2013, when it was 4.1 percent. The deficit will shrink again in fiscal 2015 to $469 billion, before rising to about $1 trillion in fiscal years 2022 to 2024, CBO said.

“This will be the fifth consecutive year in which the deficit has declined as a share of GDP since peaking at 9.8 percent in 2009,” CBO said in a report released today. The 2.8 figure as a percentage of gross domestic product is lower than the 3.1 percent average of the last 40 years, CBO said.

i breathlessly await the assault from the right, but i still say this is positive.

www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-14/u-s-deficit-cut-almost-one-third-to-492-billion-cbo.html

[phil5185]

breathlessly await the assault from the right, but i still say this is positive.

Well, there is one little detail that I, as a Righty,  will mention - it is a budget deficit, not a GDP deficit. It is not measured as a percent of GDP, it is a percentage of the budget. So 2.8% grossly understates the real deficit.

[djAdvocate]

May 13, 2014 14:22:54 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

breathlessly await the assault from the right, but i still say this is positive.

Well, there is one little detail that I, as a Righty,  will mention - it is a budget deficit, not a GDP deficit. It is not measured as a percent of GDP, it is a percentage of the budget. So 2.8% grossly understates the real deficit.

the deficit is also stated in dollars.

the %GDP is a way of measuring deficits relative to the size of the economy.  absolute measurements are kinda meaningless, imo.

edit: but if you would like it as a % of budget, here you go:

2009 = 40%
2013 = 19.6%
2014 = 13.6%
1987 = 14.9% (40 year norm)

no matter how you measure it, the deficit has fallen by about 2/3, and is now below 40 year norms.

[djAdvocate]

one last thing: the 40 year norm is too high, imo.  i MENTION IT for reasons of perspective.

[The Captain]

May 13, 2014 14:46:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

one last thing: the 40 year norm is too high, imo.  i MENTION IT for reasons of perspective.

ok, glad I read through to the end.  It's a step in the right direction but no reason to have a party IMHO.

I'll save the fireworks for when we have a few successive years of surpluses...

[jkapp]

And yet at the same time:

money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20140513&id=17614728

IRS paid at least $13B in improper tax credits

The Internal Revenue Service paid more than $13 billion in tax credits last year to people who may not have qualified, a government investigator said Tuesday

...Using IRS statistics, the inspector general's report provided an estimated range of improper EITC payments from 2003 through 2013. The report says the IRS paid out at least $124.1 billion in improper payments during the period, and perhaps as much as $148.2 billion.



So just think how much better our deficits and debt would be if the government were actually responsible stewards of our tax dollars.  (And to tie it into the other thread about accountability: it doesn't sound like anyone will be held accountable for this waste and abuse of government, either )

[justme]

So it will shrink next year, only to double in the next 7 years?   Wonder what's causing the $500B+ increase in those 7 years.

[djAdvocate]

May 13, 2014 14:53:03 GMT -5 The Captain said:

May 13, 2014 14:46:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

one last thing: the 40 year norm is too high, imo.  i MENTION IT for reasons of perspective.

ok, glad I read through to the end.  It's a step in the right direction but no reason to have a party IMHO.

I'll save the fireworks for when we have a few successive years of surpluses...

i'll be happy if the trend continues.  i doubt that will happen, unless our next president makes it a priority.

[djAdvocate]

May 13, 2014 15:02:56 GMT -5 justme said:

So it will shrink next year, only to double in the next 7 years? 

it depends on whose numbers you are looking at.  the projections i have been looking at show it going down for 3-4 years, and not doubling in 7.

Wonder what's causing the $500B+ increase in those 7 years.

they are probably taking a very conservative estimate of increased MC spending.

[Deleted]

can anyone tell me why in the name of god, we cant run the government on 2 trillion dollars a year

2,000,000,000,000    that is 12 zeroes after the 2

or 5,479,452,055 a day

5 1/2 billion a day isnt enough

think about that.....

and that doesnt include state, local, city, etc

and people wonder why some of us are just FED UP

[djAdvocate]

May 13, 2014 15:33:33 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

can anyone tell me why in the name of god, we cant run the government on 2 trillion dollars a year

i think that number is about $1.5T below what we spend.

2,000,000,000,000    that is 12 zeroes after the 2

or 5,479,452,055 a day

5 1/2 billion a day isnt enough

think about that.....

and that doesnt include state, local, city, etc

and people wonder why some of us are just FED UP

i am with you bro.  but until we get spending in check, we should tax for it.  otherwise, our grandkids will feel the sting, but all we will have to do is complain about it.

[Deleted]

according to this site

www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/fed_revenue_2013US

our revenues in 2012    2.5 t
                      2013    2.8 t
                      2014    3.0 t est

that should be enough to do everything we have to do.....and a few things we want to do

with enough left over to payoff 1/4 t per year

but that is if we had people with freaking common sense in government

we have spendaholics in $ 3000 suits patting each other on the back for another job well done

[djAdvocate]

May 13, 2014 15:46:16 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

according to this site

www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/fed_revenue_2013US

our revenues in 2012    2.5 t
                      2013    2.8 t
                      2014    3.0 t est

that is pretty close.  spending has been about $3.5T for the last (5) years, tho.  that is nowhere NEAR the $2T you mentioned.

that should be enough to do everything we have to do.....and a few things we want to do

we had a thread on what you would cut.  we looked at all of the numbers, and i believe that you found 10-20% of cuts that we could make that were based on waste/etc.  i agreed with that number.  10-20% MIGHT give us a surplus, but not at $2T in revenue.  not even close.

with enough left over to payoff 1/4 t per year

but that is if we had people with freaking common sense in government

we have spendaholics in $ 3000 suits patting each other on the back for another job well done

our spending is about average right now by historical standards.  should it be this high?  no.  i am all for cutting spending, tho, gd- don't get me wrong.  i have said so over and over again on the board, and told everyone here precisely where i would cut it.  so have you.

[Deleted]

i used the 2 trillion number for effect

it is still a shit load of money

and we SHOULD be able to run on government on that much.....

didnt say we ever will....but i know we could

[djAdvocate]

May 13, 2014 15:54:42 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

i used the 2 trillion number for effect

it is still a shit load of money

and we SHOULD be able to run on government on that much.....

didnt say we ever will....but i know we could

we DID.  in 2002. 

[rockon]

“President Obama opposes any effort to reduce the deficit, and proposes policies that would dramatically increase the deficit, so it is bizarre to watch a White House spokesperson hail lower deficit numbers,” Rory Cooper, spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said in an e-mail."

This is quite interesting to see how Obama now wants to claim credit for things he blamed on his opposition. He opposed very cost cutting measure and gave many speeches on how devastating each would be but yet wants to take credit for the result?
Also keep in mind the current deficit is around the level it was at when he tore Bush up about it as a senator. I'm very pleased to see this thing headed in a positive direction but we can't forget we tripled it before we reduced it.
So just out of curiosity who do you think should get credit for the reduced deficit? The Tea Party?

[jkapp]

May 13, 2014 17:35:37 GMT -5 rockon said:

“President Obama opposes any effort to reduce the deficit, and proposes policies that would dramatically increase the deficit, so it is bizarre to watch a White House spokesperson hail lower deficit numbers,” Rory Cooper, spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said in an e-mail."

This is quite interesting to see how Obama now wants to claim credit for things he blamed on his opposition. He opposed very cost cutting measure and gave many speeches on how devastating each would be but yet wants to take credit for the result?
Also keep in mind the current deficit is around the level it was at when he tore Bush up about it as a senator. I'm very pleased to see this thing headed in a positive direction but we can't forget we tripled it before we reduced it.
So just out of curiosity who do you think should get credit for the reduced deficit? The Tea Party?

its probably about the only benefit from a gridlocked government...

So the answer to the question is whomever one believes to be at fault for the gridlock

[happyhoix]

can anyone tell me why in the name of god, we cant run the government on 2 trillion dollars a year

Government pork.

They just passed a military spending bill, and the congressmen were busy putting money BACK into the military budget to continue to pay for shit the military doesn't want, but that will provide pork for the congressmen back home: 

 House Republicans spare aircraft, bases and personnel benefits from defense budget cuts by chipping away at money the Pentagon spends in preparing the military for war.

Forced to make trade-offs within spending limits, the bill would spare the U-2 spy plane, born during the height of the Cold War, by barring any money to the Pentagon to retire the aircraft. Amid the clamor in Congress, the bill also would force the Pentagon to keep the A-10 Warthog in storage rather than retire the plane.

www.manufacturing.net/news/2014/05/house-gop-budget-spares-weapons-military-benefits

The military wanted to spend more money in being prepared for the next conflict, the politicians shoved money into the budget to keep useless planes in storage.

This is not a republican-democrat thing. This is a bi-partisian stupidity where politicians try to snag as much pork for their home districts as possible.

[djAdvocate]

May 14, 2014 7:28:12 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

can anyone tell me why in the name of god, we cant run the government on 2 trillion dollars a year

Government pork. .

precisely.  when the GOP talks about cutting spending, they seem to forget that deficit spending was far more of a hallmark of the GOP prior to Obama than it was for Democrats.  since WW2, 8 of 10 of the most balanced budgets occurred under Democratic presidencies.  prior to Obama, all TEN of the least balanced budgets were under Republican presidents.  Obama has displaced 3 of them, which means that 7 out of 10 of the least balanced budgets since WW2 have been under Republican presidents (Reagan 4, Bush1 2, Bush2 1), and that is unlikely to change given that Obama's final 3-4 budgets appear to be in the "better half" of budgets since WW2.

edit: i should add that the GOP has taken a lot of political risk with the budget in the last four years.  this is more of a general criticism of what they did in the previous 40 years than in the last four.  but as you point out, their latest proposals to add pork right back onto the defense bill is proof positive that now that the "crisis" is over, they appear to be returning to the same old BS that got us here in the first place.  i should also mention that the Democrats have never been especially serious about deficits.  most of the fiscal conservatives are in the GOP, which is one of the main reasons i joined the party.

[happyhoix]

their latest proposals to add pork right back onto the defense bill is proof positive that now that the "crisis" is over, they appear to be returning to the same old BS that got us here in the first place. i should also mention that the Democrats have never been especially serious about deficits.

Exactly. Everyone wants to fix the budget except for that part of it that brings pork to their district.

I wonder how much different things would be if terms were extended to 10 years but you could only hold the same office once per life time. No running for re-election. How different would a politician's decisions be if he didn't have to send pork back home to make his constituents happy?

What would it be like if politicians made decisions based only on what was best for the country? I can't even imagine it.

[phil5185]

Remember the media buzz about $400 hammers?

The Pentagon sends out an RFQ, requires the contractor to buy 50 hammers made from a homogeneous lot of steel manufactured under identical conditions (and provide certifications).  Contractors prepare proposals, bid on the job. Gov't reviews proposals for a couple months, then downselects, picks a contractor.

Contractor buys 50 hammers with certification, puts them on a test machine, breaks the handle on 33, collects data, runs standard deviation and outlier test, prepares reports.
Contractor performs metal hardness test on  33 hammer heads, prepares standard deviation/outlier report.

If any of the hammers are out-of-range, you but 50 more and start over. If the hammers pass, you provide about a pickup load of reports to the Pentagon -  send 15 hammers to the Pentagon - and store 2 hammers for posterity (legal dept) in case back-up testing is required.

Actually, the 15 hammers cost  >$400 each. But some of them went to the moon.

[jkapp]

May 14, 2014 18:18:15 GMT -5 phil5185 said:

Remember the media buzz about $400 hammers?

The Pentagon sends out an RFQ, requires the contractor to buy 50 hammers made from a homogeneous lot of steel manufactured under identical conditions (and provide certifications).  Contractors prepare proposals, bid on the job. Gov't reviews proposals for a couple months, then downselects, picks a contractor.

Contractor buys 50 hammers with certification, puts them on a test machine, breaks the handle on 33, collects data, runs standard deviation and outlier test, prepares reports.
Contractor performs metal hardness test on  33 hammer heads, prepares standard deviation/outlier report.

If any of the hammers are out-of-range, you but 50 more and start over. If the hammers pass, you provide about a pickup load of reports to the Pentagon -  send 15 hammers to the Pentagon - and store 2 hammers for posterity (legal dept) in case back-up testing is required.

Actually, the 15 hammers cost  >$400 each. But some of them went to the moon.

I remember reading a story about a maintenance worker in a federal building who couldn't just go down the block to buy a $10 hammer from the local hardware store - he had to buy it from the "approved" vendor, wait for a month for it to be delivered, and it cost something like $200 (or more).  It just really is ridiculous and lacks any common sense.