Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
SDI and terrorism
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: [QB] Interesting link that. [QUOTE]Thus subtract... what, $50bil, now? Still, over $100 billion this year alone.[/QUOTE] Conjecture is not proof. While I enjoyed looking at the White House numbers, I thought that we might take a look at another source in The Congressional Budjet Office. The CBO had updated its figures on 5 September 2001, and in general the numbers are about the same, but the CBO goes into more detail than the White House. [QUOTE]Recently enacted legislation and the continued sluggish behavior of the U.S. economy have reduced the projected federal budget surpluses for fiscal year 2001 and future years. CBO projects that the total budget surplus in 2001 will be $153 billion--$122 billion lower than CBO estimated in May. About two-thirds of the decrease results from new legislation; one-third comes from a weaker economy and other factors. Despite that drop, if the $153 billion surplus materializes in 2001, it will equal 1.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the second largest surplus as a share of the economy since 1951. Because of the smaller total surplus, CBO now projects a small on-budget deficit for this year. (The on-budget accounts exclude the spending and revenues of Social Security and the Postal Service.) If current tax and spending policies are maintained and the economy performs as estimated, CBO projects small deficits or surpluses in on-budget accounts for the next four years; however, steadily increasing on-budget surpluses reemerge by the middle of the decade. The projected surpluses would allow all public debt that is available for redemption to be retired by 2010. [b]The Budget Outlook[/b] For the five years from 2002 through 2006, CBO projects surpluses totaling $1.1 trillion, which come almost entirely from off-budget accounts (see Table 1). For the 10-year period through 2011, CBO estimates that under current policies, surpluses will total $3.4 trillion. Social Security makes up about three-quarters of that total. In 2010, the on-budget surplus reaches 1 percent of GDP, and the total surplus grows to 3 percent of GDP. Those estimates should be viewed cautiously, however, because future economic developments, technical estimating errors, and future legislative actions could produce substantial deviations--a point that CBO discussed in detail in its January report on the budget and economic outlook.[/QUOTE] Find the report [URL=http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3022&sequence=0&from=7]here[/URL]. Some key parts I'd like to point out in the CBO report: <ul> [*] CBO projects that the total budget surplus in 2001 will be $153 billion--$122 billion lower than CBO estimated in May. About two-thirds of the decrease results from new legislation; one-third comes from a weaker economy and other factors. </ul> The fact of the matter is is that all the CBO and the White House can do is speculate as to if there is a surplus or not. What is clear however, is that when negative growth forces are applied to the budget, ie tax cuts, emergency military outlays and economic downturns, then the numbers consistantly get revised downward. The American stock market took a huge hit when the planes destroyed the World Trade towers and hit the Pentagon. The economic downturn continues to deepen and as a result it is unclear at this point if there is a surplus of any kind. Therefor looking to fund the SDI initiative based upon a projected surplus is indulging in fancy. <ul> [*] For the five years from 2002 through 2006, CBO projects surpluses totaling $1.1 trillion, which come almost entirely from off-budget accounts (see Table 1). For the 10-year period through 2011, CBO estimates that under current policies, surpluses will total $3.4 trillion. Social Security makes up about three-quarters of that total.</ul> Both the White House and CBO include Social Security in some aspect of their budget analysis. I believe it is wrong to view Social Security as just another part of the general fund however. The monies in the Social Security Trust Fund have in a sence been spent already as future payments to retirees. Consequently, it is not free to be spent on other programs or military expenditures. <ul> [*]Lower projections of economic growth over the next few years, along with other revisions to the economic forecast, will diminish surpluses by $283 billion between 2002 and 2011, according to CBO's projections. (Those revisions reflect changes in the economic outlook since January, when CBO last updated its economic assumptions.) In addition, technical changes will reduce surpluses by $177 billion. </ul> Again, as the surplus is revised downward as a result poor economic forecasts, it becomes less realistic to point at the budget and say that there is a surplus at any given level if at all. Now, there is considerable debate on where spending should go in each and every budget passed by the United States Congress. Rightly so. I believe that the United States needs to avoid moving back into the huge deficit spending of the Reagan years. With the huge emergency outlays by Congress in recent days, and the fact that predictions of the surplus are precarious at best, and with shaky economic news combined with my strong belief that the domestic side of policy can not be overlooked too long during all of this brings me to the conclusion that the United States can not afford to pursue this unproven, expensive and divisive idea. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3