by Mark Silva
Anyone looking for some weekend reading, or perhaps some relief from work on the tax returns, can easily catch up on the details of the new $3.1 trillion federal budget that President Bush has proposed. All the documents are readily available at www.budget.gov.
Trouble is, you might need an accountant to guide you through some of the many historical and current tables of these documents.
Time was when the government offered you a "Citizen's Guide to the Federal Budget,'' an extremely user-friendly, illustrated and fully accessible walk-up to the multi-trillion-dollar affairs of the federal government.
No more. Not since 2002 have the Government Printing Office's citizen-friendly selections on the Web offered that Citizen's Guide -- it's been out of print for much of Bush's two terms.
Could it be that there was no place for a chapter like this one featured in the 2002 Citizen's Guide -- "Why a Budget Surplus is Important'' -- the last time they were able to boast of a federal surplus, and also promised a surplus "for decades to come" with proper discipline?
These pages from the 2002 Guide, the last one available, are real keepers:
"The Budget Surplus and Fiscal Discipline . . . . . 19
"Why a Budget Surplus is Important. . . . . . . . . . 22
From Page 22: "The 2002 Budget forecasts surpluses for decades to come if we maintain a policy of fiscal discipline.
" Should we worry about the possibility of a return to budget deficits? Deficits increase the Federal debt and, with it, the Government's obligation to pay interest. The more it must pay in interest, the less it has available to spend on education, defense, law enforcement, and other important services.''
The deficit projected in Bush's proposed 2009 budget: $407 billion, a near-record. That's with $70 billion in war-spending included in the budget, though Secretary of Defense Robert Gates this week put the real figure at more like $170 billion -- make that a $507 billion deficit, a new record. The budget does project another surplus again, in 2012.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Surpluses? So early 21st century!
Standard National Debt Response:
Here is the chart showing the bell curve growth (left side) of the national debt under GWB/Cheney.
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
Two notes of interest:
1. The debt grew at it's fastest rate under Reagan/Bush and Bush/Cheney. In fact it took off like a Scud missile under President Dimwit.
2. The debt only leveled off under Bill Clinton's term from about '96 to '00 due to his wise tax policies and economic prudence.
Now, when GWB/Cheney took office they started looking for reasons to cut taxes and run up the debt, in spite of the fact that the American people supported NOT cutting taxes and paying down the debt! You see, they actually wanted to destroy the effectiveness of the federal government. What better way to do it than destroying America's fiscal and financial standing?
The time around '99-'00 was a historic opportunity to reduce, (not eliminate entirely) the national debt. In fact, the American people, wisely, opposed all of Boy George's tax cuts at about the 65% level, give or take 4%.
Well, Cheney said 'deficits don't matter', and GWD said he 'hit the trifecta' and they chose to cut taxes on the wealthy in spite of America's opposition. They even cut taxes going into a costly and unnecessary war.
I see it as 'cutting off the nose of someone else to spite some unnamed third party'.
It's a fact; GWB cut taxes for ideological reasons despite the opposition the huge majority of American public opinion.
BTW, we saved our portion and that was attacked as unpatriotic. Hey! We may need another new muffler some day!
Posted by: C.Morris | February 8, 2008 10:46 AM
So, why does the Republican Party continue to call itself the party of fiscal conservatism?
Posted by: DD | February 8, 2008 1:25 PM
The Democratic party doesn't need to spend any money running attack ads. They have their fellow Liberal Democrat, reporter Mark Silva, to do the dirty work for them for free.
A more honest reporter, if he was genuinely worried about the federal budget deficit, would ask Congressional Democrats (and Republicans) how in these times of deficit they can justify a $200 billion "stimulus" giveway. You know, the bill Democratic presidential candidates Clinton II and Obama support. But since that question would embarrass the Democrats, it will never be asked by any Swamp reporter.
Posted by: Bruce | February 8, 2008 1:46 PM
Bruce,
I agree, the package is not good. Better to do nothing, than the wrong thing.
But since they insist, I am saving mine, for some future stupid bloody Tuesday tsunami.
Posted by: C.Morris | February 8, 2008 6:56 PM
Unless I missed something here, seems to me that the president asked for the stimulus package, 145 billion -- big surprise that it grew. but that 145 is part of what makes the deficit 410 B in 2008. So the Democrats give him 200, that makes it 460 B. They're in it together.
Posted by: Mark Silva | February 8, 2008 7:12 PM
Mark,
This bill is inflationary. All the Bush cuts were inflationary.
We have been trying to retire for some time now, but every time Mrs. Mo and I reach a goal, the goal posts have moved.
I guess we won't really retire; Just take it easy for a few years, if we are lucky.
Posted by: C.Morris | February 8, 2008 7:33 PM
CM,
If gov't is going to get credit, let's get it right - the debt leveled off when Newt and Company took over Congress. Remember, President Clinton was quoted in 1995 stating that he saw $200 billion ($300 billion in today's dollar) deficits for as far as the eyes could see.
It should be interesting to see how this $150 billion handout stimulates the economy and for how long.
Posted by: Terry | February 8, 2008 9:13 PM