08/22/01:Budget Scant NonSS Surplus

[Freakapotimus]

Wednesday August 22 8:52 AM ET

Budget Data Show Scant Non-Social Security Surplus
By Jonathan Nicholson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Updated U.S. budget figures released by the Bush administration on Wednesday showed only the narrowest of cushions if the government is to avoid tapping the politically sensitive Social Security trust fund to balance the budget this year.

But longer-term projections continued to show substantial surpluses, with only minimal effects from the current economic slowdown and income-tax refunds that have cut sharply into the surplus for the current fiscal year, which ends in September.

The administration's mid-session budget review showed a $1.9 billion surplus outside of receipts from Social Security or the Postal Service for fiscal year 2001. The surfeit is small enough that a slight deviation in either spending or revenues in August or September may mean the White House violates a self-imposed pledge to avoid dipping into Social Security.

But the overall surplus, including Social Security and Postal receipts, is projected to be about $157.8 billion, down from the record $236.92 billion seen in the previous fiscal year. The surplus for fiscal year 2002, which begins in October, is projected to be about $173 billion when planned policy initiatives are taken into account.

In April, the White House had estimated the current year's budget surplus to be about $281 billion and next year's at about $231 billion.

Over the 10-year period ending 2011, the overall surplus is expected to total $3.113 trillion, including proposed policy changes, down from $3.433 trillion estimated in April. Excluding Social Security, the 10-year surplus is projected to be a smaller $575 billion.

The prospect of using surpluses generated by the Social Security and Medicare programs to fund general government purposes has angered Democrats, who blame the size of the president's tax cut for putting the government in a squeeze.

But the White House notes the current year's overall budget surplus should still be the second largest on record. And it has defended the tax cut, which totals $1.35 trillion over 10 years, as necessary to keep the shaky economy on track.

``The government's finances are in extraordinarily strong shape,'' said Mitchell Daniels, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.

``The size of future surpluses, as well as continued strong growth of Social Security and Medicare trust funds, all depend on a return to sustained economic growth. All relevant policies -- fiscal, trade, regulatory and others -- should share this primary objective,'' he said.

The OMB fingered the slumping economy as the single biggest reason for the decrease in this year's surplus, attributing to it a $46 billion shortfall in revenues.

The OMB's ``baseline'' budget numbers, which assume no policy changes in the future, are mildly more optimistic than the administration's other projections. They see a $186.6 billion surplus in fiscal 2002 and a $3.842 trillion surplus over the 2002-2011 period.

The White House forecast the economy to grow 3.2 percent in 2002, higher than many private sector forecasts and a pickup from the 1.7 percent rate it forecast for this year. The administration projected a 3.2 percent rate of average growth for the ten-year period ending in 2011.

The new budget projections also pushed back the date by which the government pays off the portion of the national debt that it says is practical to redeem. In the new figures, budget surpluses will be larger than redeemable debt in 2010, two years later than assumed in April.

[Done1done1done]

The prospect of using surpluses generated by the Social Security and Medicare programs to fund general government purposes has angered Democrats, who blame the size of the president's tax cut for putting the government in a squeeze.

I have to say that Bush's tax cut is one of the worst things I have ever seen. It's just helping the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. And tax cuts mean less money for government programs. However, the American hears "tax cut" and immediately loves whoever promised them that, because it sounds like it means they win, when in fact they don't in the end.

[anhnonymous]

At 8/22/01 10:49 AM, Wheatonman wrote: I have to say that Bush's tax cut is one of the worst things I have ever seen. It's just helping the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. And tax cuts mean less money for government programs. However, the American hears "tax cut" and immediately loves whoever promised them that, because it sounds like it means they win, when in fact they don't in the end.

$300 bucks is alot to me. That's two kegs of Heineken but only dinner for two for someone like "the donald" or "bill gates billionaire". That's kind of ironic since they pay more in taxes than you and me and only get a refund of $300 bucks. Of course the rich will always get richer since they have more capital to invest with. But the poor will not necessarily always get poorer. Look at bill gates in the seventies, his office was in his garage. And less money for government programs, like what pork money. Money to build an orchid greenhouse in Illinoise, or a scenic trail in Hawaii. Like Hawaii really needs a scenic trail. There's alot of bullshit government programs out there that you never hear about because its not in your state. And peolple still bitch about defense spending even though only 3% of the budget goes to the military.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 8/23/01 06:25 PM, anhnonymous wrote:

At 8/22/01 10:49 AM, Wheatonman wrote: I have to say that Bush's tax cut is one of the worst things I have ever seen. It's just helping the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. And tax cuts mean less money for government programs. However, the American hears "tax cut" and immediately loves whoever promised them that, because it sounds like it means they win, when in fact they don't in the end.

$300 bucks is alot to me. That's two kegs of Heineken but only dinner for two for someone like "the donald" or "bill gates billionaire". That's kind of ironic since they pay more in taxes than you and me and only get a refund of $300 bucks. Of course the rich will always get richer since they have more capital to invest with. But the poor will not necessarily always get poorer. Look at bill gates in the seventies, his office was in his garage. And less money for government programs, like what pork money. Money to build an orchid greenhouse in Illinoise, or a scenic trail in Hawaii. Like Hawaii really needs a scenic trail. There's alot of bullshit government programs out there that you never hear about because its not in your state. And peolple still bitch about defense spending even though only 3% of the budget goes to the military.

I think the main complaint is in nuclear spending. That 3% doesn't include R&D or nuclear weapons. Bush Okayed a new multi billion dollar plan to modernize nuclear weapons production facilities